Sitting of 24 June 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  NEW WRIT
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the borough constituency of Leicester, South in the room of James Marshall, Esquire, deceased.—[Ms Armstrong.]

  NEW WRIT
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Birmingham, Hodge Hill in the room of the right hon. Terry Davis, who since his election for the said borough constituency has accepted the office of Steward and Bailiff of Her Majesty's three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the county of Buckinghamshire.—[Ms Armstrong.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Civil Servants
    Mr. David Heath: What plans she has to move civil servants (a) within her Department and (b) in agencies for which her Department has responsibility, presently based in London to rural areas of England. [180204]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): Work is under way to evaluate how and where civil servants should be located to meet the business needs of the Department and its agencies. That work will complement the Lyons review on public sector relocation and the Gershon efficiency review.
    Mr. Heath: I suppose that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will eventually give a response to the Haskins review and, indeed, the reviews that the right hon. Lady mentioned. Would it not be a splendid idea if it showed its commitment to rural areas by moving headquarters staff to, for instance, the west country, where staff might occasionally meet
    1434
    dairy farmers, use rural bus services and experience the glories of wetland areas? If she wants a suitable site, I am happy to suggest Frome.
    Margaret Beckett: I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is not the only person with ideas for places, including areas in the south-west, where staff could go. We hope to make an announcement soon on the Haskins review, and he will understand that I do not wish to anticipate discussion of any further decisions. We are, however, mindful of the fact that our Department has a high profile and that there is a strong need to provide services in rural areas.
    Mr. David Kidney: Will my right hon. Friend accept my stronger bid? If Prue Leith succeeds in her plan for a visitor attraction, chefs' training centre and food hall in the Great British Kitchen at Stafford, would my right hon. Friend regard Stafford as sufficiently rural—[Interruption.] This is important. Does my right hon. Friend think that the synergies with the work of her Department are sufficiently strong for Stafford to be an excellent location for those civil servants?
    Margaret Beckett: That is an interesting observation, and it reinforces my caution about giving advice about the decisions that will be made.
    Mr. James Gray: The Secretary of State boasts of her plans to redeploy staff to rural areas, but if all those plans were implemented, they would affect 673 jobs out of 31,000 in the DEFRA family. Is the Minister aware of the evidence that her permanent secretary, Sir Brian Bender, gave the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee last Wednesday, in which he said there was a policy of "deliberate churning" of DEFRA staff, which means that more than half of all senior civil servants are brand new to the job? Sir Brian went on to say that 49 per cent. of staff are proud to work for DEFRA. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether she is proud to be in charge of a Department that deliberately churns its staff, in the permanent secretary's expression, and where 51 per cent. of staff are apparently ashamed to work?
    Margaret Beckett: Yes, I am proud to be in our Department, which I think is an extremely good Department. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about what presumably concerns him about the phrase "churning of staff", but there is considerable merit—not least in a Department like ours, where there are great synergies across the subject specialties that the Department covers—in people acquiring a range of experience and expertise. We believe that the Department is better for it.
    Hugh Bayley: I congratulate the Department on moving the Pesticides Safety Directorate headquarters, the Meat Hygiene Service headquarters and many other DEFRA staff to their brand-new, purpose-built headquarters accommodation at Kings Pool in York, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on moving the Central Science Laboratory to Sand Hutton in rural North Yorkshire, just outside York.

    1435
    May I remind her that North Yorkshire is the largest rural county in England, and urge her to move further DEFRA jobs there without delay?
    Margaret Beckett: The longer the question goes on, the more confident I am that whatever decision is ultimately made, it will be extremely unpopular with large numbers of hon. Members.

    Queen Bees
    Mr. David Cameron: What steps she has taken to urge the EU to permit the import of queen bees from Hawaii; and if she will make a statement. [180205]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): We have approached the European Commission on a number of occasions about the import of queen bees from Hawaii. The trade will be able to resume when the United States can match European standards for bee health controls. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that we must do all we can to protect our bees from foreign pests and diseases, such as the small hive beetle and American foul brood.
    Mr. Cameron: Does the Minister share the frustration of my bee-keeping constituent, Mr. Burrows, who wants to import queen bees from Hawaii, as he has done before? Is the Minister aware that the Department has said that Hawaii has a high bee health status? While I am sure he would welcome a fact-finding mission to Hawaii, and I would gladly go with him, will he consult his wall map and see that Hawaii is 1,625 miles from mainland USA? So will he get down to Brussels and tell officials to amend their rules, which are stopping my constituent producing the best honey?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am aware that Hawaii is a very long way away from mainland USA, but I am afraid that Hawaii must be treated as territorially part of the USA for this purpose. I point out to the hon. Gentleman's constituent that there are alternative sources for queen bees: Argentina, New Zealand and Australia, and I understand that Slovenia and Greece, both in the European Union, also produce very fine queens.
    Ann Winterton: While the British pig industry has managed to contain the fall in production, which has levelled out at 500,000 tonnes—
    Hon. Members: Ask your question.

    Pig Industry
    Ann Winterton: What measures her Department is taking to promote the British pig industry. [180206]
    The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): The British Pig Executive of the Meat and Livestock Commission is the
    1436
    body responsible for promoting the interests of the British pig industry. My ministerial colleagues and I are happy to support those activities.
    Ann Winterton: Queen bees carried me away for a moment, Mr. Speaker.
    While the British pig industry has managed to contain the fall in production, which has levelled out at about 500,000 tonnes, with prices remaining sustainable at present, is the Minister aware that pig producers are still under considerable pressure from imported pig and pig-meat products, much of which it would be illegal to produce in the United Kingdom because of our higher animal welfare standards, such as the banning of stall and tether production? Will the Minister therefore support wholeheartedly the National Pig Association's best practice guidelines to be published next month, and encourage retailers and the food service sector alike to sign up to UK sourcing and honesty in the food chain?
    Mr. Morley: I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes in relation to the UK pig industry. She is right: it produces meat to high welfare standards. We have been campaigning for the same standards across the EU, and European producers will ultimately meet the UK standards. At present, there is an advantage for UK producers in terms of marketability. In that respect, we warmly welcome the industry's efforts to speak to retailers, and in principle we support its approach to the code of practice. We look forward to talking to the industry to see how we can take matters forward.

    Dairy Industry
    Richard Younger-Ross: How many dairy farmers have left the industry in the last 12 months. [180207]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): We do not hold figures for the number of dairy farmers who have left the industry. The agricultural census for England shows that between June 2002 and June 2003, there was a net reduction of 786 holdings where dairy farming is the predominant activity
    Richard Younger Ross: May I suggest that the Secretary of State should hold such figures? At the beginning of this week, the Western Morning News reported that many farmers in the south-west are losing up to £24,000 a year and that more than 3,000 dairy cattle a week are being sold off. My constituent, Anthony Rew, questioned me the other day about how he could continue in the dairy industry when last year he received less than 17p a litre. What action will the Secretary of State take to preserve the British dairy herd from decimation?
    Margaret Beckett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that there is overcapacity in milk production. He will also be aware that the Government have taken initiatives through the Food Chain Centre and through my noble Friend Lord Whitty and the Dairy Supply Chain Forum. Through those means, a considerable amount of advice is available to the industry. The hon. Gentleman will also be conscious of

    1437
    the fact that there are genuine problems in dairy and that they are not necessarily resolvable at the wave of a ministerial wand.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I know that my right hon. Friend is very concerned about the future of farming in the UK, but dairy farming in particular has suffered. We can see that the monopolies of the supermarket are not fair. There should be a fair price at the farm gate to ensure that dairy farming continues and that we can attract young people into dairy farming. If we cannot do so, we will see the end of such farming in the UK. We need help and protection, and I will welcome whatever support she can give.
    Margaret Beckett: I understand the concern that my hon. Friend expresses. The latest milk price, the April price, was the highest April price since 2001, at just under 18p a litre. He rightly said that this is a long-running saga. There is concern in the industry and there are difficulties, but he will know that the Office of Fair Trading has recently undertaken a compliance audit of the supermarket code of practice in order to try to address some of the concerns that have been raised by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
    Andrew George: Following on from the question of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), does the Secretary of State accept that dairy farmers in the UK are among the most efficient in Europe? She must reflect on the fact that they are being paid less and going out of business in their droves. What discussions has she had with the Secretary of state for Trade and Industry? Does she accept that now is the time to strengthen the supermarket code of practice to ensure that dairy farmers and other farmers are given the proper protections in the market that they richly deserve, now?
    Margaret Beckett: I can only repeat that there are, and have been for a very long time, genuine problems in the dairy industry. The Office of Fair Trading has considered the position and reported on a number of occasions, but it has responded, as we hoped that it would, to the concerns that continue to be expressed by producers. For that reason, it has undertaken a compliance audit, and we await the results. I am afraid that there is no point in hon. Members continuously saying, "Let us look at it again." We have many conversations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and, through her, with the Office of Fair Trading. I can only say yet again that, however often the matter has been looked at, the Office of Fair Trading has up to now been unable to find the sort of distortion of competition that I know many in the industry suspect exists. I repeat that it is presently undertaking a further compliance audit, and we await the results.
    Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend will have seen the report from the Select Committee on Agriculture, which highlighted the level of distrust in the industry. One of the recommendations made by the Committee was that the Government
    1438
    should remain in the chair in the supply chain initiative to ensure that the sector pulls together. Will she ensure that that continues to happen?
    Margaret Beckett: Yes, indeed, I will. Many people welcome the Dairy Supply Chain Forum's work, and we will continue to keep up the pressure. That includes, for example, our acceptance of the Select Committee's recommendation, which I warmly welcome, that the OFT and the Competition Commission should do more to convey the fact that the dairy sector understands that they are not opposed to vertical integration in the sector. The Select Committee report, to which we shall respond in due course, is interesting, and it confirms the existence of considerable, long-standing problems.
    Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's acknowledgment of the importance of the Select Committee report on milk pricing. Can she assure me that one of the priorities for the Dairy Supply Chain Forum will be to establish a proper dialogue about openness and transparency in the milk industry, because different sections of the industry seem not to engage in such a dialogue? Will she also ensure that Lord Whitty understands what the forum is about? When I asked him what it does, he said:
    "I am not sure of the precise terms of reference".
    Margaret Beckett: First, I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that greater openness and transparency are required, and, secondly, I share the Select Committee's view that many of the sector's difficulties are issues for the industry, although it is important for the Government to do what we can to help the industry to help itself. I was slightly surprised by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about my noble Friend Lord Whitty, because most people know how well my noble Friend understands the difficulties and how much he has done to help.

    Single Farm Payment
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What assessment she has made of the amount of administration and form-filling that will be involved in ensuring compliance with the single farm payment. [180208]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): Common agricultural policy reform will bring significant benefits for our agriculture industry. It will introduce a new freedom to farm and will release our producers from a significant burden of bureaucracy associated with the old CAP.
    Mr. Robathan: I hope that that is right. I must declare that I am a farmer, and that I consider myself to be relatively—I stress "relatively"—well educated and intelligent, but filling in the integrated administration and control scheme form is one of the most mind-numbingly complex things that I do each year. The Secretary of State should spend an hour trying to fill in that form, which is extraordinary.
    Although I broadly welcome the single farm payment—I would welcome the scrapping of the CAP even more—farmers throughout the country are

    1439
    concerned that it will impose heavier burdens, particularly with regard to soil management plans and the like. Can the Secretary of State reassure farmers that the bureaucratic burden and the cost of compliance will not be heavier than under the CAP, which involves filling in a ludicrous number of forms?
    Margaret Beckett: I assure the hon. Gentleman that nobody will be more disappointed than Labour Members and me if CAP reform does not result in substantially greater simplicity. At least two of the 10 schemes that are being replaced involved up to 12 claims a year. Although the complexity is greater than if we went straight to the new scheme, the transition period is unfortunate but inevitable. In the long term, it is better to provide an adjustment period, and the new scheme, which involves one form, one payment date and one application, should make a huge difference.
    Diana Organ: The overwhelming majority of farmers recognise that administration and form-filling are necessary to avoid fraud, to create a healthy and safe environment and to allow the meat that we eat to be traced. Although farmers endeavour to fill in forms promptly and correctly, they may be overwhelmed by farm tasks during busy periods. That happened to a farmer in my constituency, Mike Manning, who forgot to register a couple of his calves because he was silaging. The British Cattle Movement Service helpline informed him that he could register his animals by phone or fax. That was new to him and to many other farmers in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that farmers are made aware of the facility whereby they can register their animals not only on the website but by phone and fax—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State understands the case.
    Margaret Beckett: I take my hon. Friend's point entirely. I am sorry to learn that her constituent was not aware that we are trying to make it easier for people to meet the requirements. I share her view that it is important to make farmers aware of that, especially as we can move increasingly towards easier methods of access to schemes. The introduction of the new scheme will give us a good opportunity to do that.
    We hope that, in future, the Rural Payments Agency can build up a bank of information. That ties in with my hon. Friend's question and that of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). It will mean that only changes need to be notified, which will be an enormous help.
    Mr. David Curry: The right hon. Lady will appreciate that, before the single farm payment can take effect, it will be necessary to define precisely where the moorland line lies. Does she also appreciate that farmers want to know what machinery will be set up to adjudicate that, who will man it and the sort of information that has to be supplied? Clearly, there is great uncertainty and farmers are anxious to be able to see their way forward as soon as possible.
    Margaret Beckett: I entirely appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point. He knows that we are conscious of
    1440
    the fact that, when the moorland line was established, no specific payment was associated with it because there was no perceived need at the time and there was therefore no appeal mechanism for individual decisions. We are now considering as a matter of urgency what process we can introduce to ensure that people have the opportunity to make representations about exactly where the moorland line should run. I hope that we can make an announcement about that in the not-too-distant future, because I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that it is important that farmers know where they stand.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: Although I am reasured by the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), does she share my concern and that of many of my marginal land farmers and hill farmers and members of the Peak park authority that there may be far fewer farmers to fill in the forms under the single farm payment scheme? That is damaging to those who farm on our marginal land.
    Margaret Beckett: I am not sure what leads the hon. Gentleman to that conclusion, but there will inevitably be losers as well as winners. That applies to every change that is introduced. However, breaking the link between production and subsidy will generally benefit farming and allow for economic improvement. People must make the decisions that are right for the future of their businesses, but they will have considerable stability from knowing what they will receive for some eight years. People in many other industries would welcome such a business-planning horizon.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: Does the Secretary of State know that the proposal to require a 2 m uncultivated buffer strip as one of the cross-compliance measures to obtain a single farm payment may cost many farmers up to thousands of pounds? How do the Government justify the fact that the farmers who have done most for the environment by creating hedgerows and habitat will be worst affected by that proposal?
    Margaret Beckett: We have only just reached the closing date for the consultation process on cross-compliance. The idea of a 2 m strip was raised during it. Although some people expressed great concern, others take a different view—either that the proposal is welcome or that it does not present great difficulty. We shall study all those responses with great care before we reach our decisions.

    Hazardous Waste
    Sue Doughty: If she will make a statement on progress on the preparation of European Union directives relating to the disposal of hazardous waste. [180209]
    The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Preparation of EU directives rests with the European Commission. Several existing directives relate to the disposal of hazardous

    1441
    waste. The main ones are: the hazardous waste directive, the landfill directive and the waste incineration directive. Each is at various stages of implementation.
    Sue Doughty: I am particularly concerned about that answer because the landfill directive, which bans co-disposal of hazardous waste in landfill, becomes operational next month. There are insufficient sites in this country to deal with hazardous waste and we shall be faced with the prospect of thousands of lorry movements up and down the country, and of the fly-tipping of hazardous waste as lorries are turned away from the sites that they have previously used. Will the Minister stop expecting the industry to take a lead, when DEFRA has failed to do so, and will he put in place the remedies and resources necessary to deal with the problem that will arise next month?
    Mr. Morley: I do not accept what the hon. Lady says. She should understand that the industry is responsible for the investment and business decisions relating to waste disposal. Our responsibility is for regulation and permitting, through the Environment Agency and the Department. Her point about insufficient sites is also wrong, because the latest projection is that there will be adequate facilities for hazardous waste disposal in this country. She needs to understand that one of the reasons behind the change is the need to reduce the amount of hazardous waste going into landfill. At the moment, 60 per cent. of the hazardous waste stream is contaminated topsoil. We have recently heard that a major site that would otherwise have provided 400,000 tonnes of contaminated topsoil will instead bring in machinery to treat the soil on site. That is an example of exactly the kind of thing that we want to encourage.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I certainly support my colleague in pressing to reduce the amount of hazardous waste that is being produced. However, there are genuine concerns that, when the new rules come in next month, the amount of fly-tipping will increase as the cowboys who operate in the industry try to cut costs. We need the regulator—the Environment Agency—to be given the powers and resources necessary to ensure that those people are brought to justice. Will my hon. Friend also take note that the number of serious fly-tipping incidents involving hazardous waste doubled between 2001 and 2002, and that there are fears of further increases? Will he therefore ensure that the issue is given serious consideration?
    Mr. Morley: Yes, I want to assure my hon. Friend that we take the issue seriously, and that we are in no way complacent about the risks created by people who try to cut corners by operating illegally. Fly-tipping is one of our priorities, and we have given new powers both to the Environment Agency and to local authorities in relation to stop and search and to the confiscation of vehicles. We are also introducing new streamlined procedures for permits, so that the people who collect hazardous waste will need authorisation to do so and will be able to be traced. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must ensure that the necessary attention and priority are given to tackling those people involved in fly-tipping, and that we make an example of them in the courts.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: One concern must be that some of the hazardous waste that will now
    1442
    be diverted, quite appropriately, from landfill will then go to be incinerated. In that regard, what is the Government's view of the Environment Agency's proposals to allow the burning of more toxic materials in cement kilns? Many local populations accepted the burning of tyres in cement kilns as an appropriate way of dealing with that waste, but they will be very concerned that more toxic materials might be burned under the new proposals. What do the Government have to say about that?
    Mr. Morley: What we say is that the very highest standards must apply when any material is burned in any incineration process. An impression has been given that a lower standard of regulation will apply to the burning of alternative fuels in cement kilns than in high-temperature incineration. That will not be the case. We will expect the Environment Agency to apply exactly the same strict standards as it applies at the moment, and each case will be considered on its individual merits.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend will be aware that the EU large combustion plants directive is intended to reduce nitrogen and sulphur emissions. However, the two approaches that have been suggested—the national plan approach and the emission limit value approach—both threaten jobs. Will he therefore robustly tackle the Commission on adopting an effective hybrid approach that would not result in a loss of jobs and would protect British industry?
    Mr. Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's point on the large combustion directive. There are two alternatives, one of which is favoured by the manufacturing sector, and one of which is favoured by the coal sector. Outcomes are important to DEFRA: we want not only environmental standards but a system that reflects the operations and needs of the particular sectors. We are, of course, considering this issue, and we are talking to the Department of Trade and Industry. We understand his point very well.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Is it not complacent to the point of irresponsible for the Minister to say, with less than a month to go, and with only five sites licensed to tackle hazardous waste, at least one of which is unlikely to come into operation, that facilities are now adequate? By trying to shove the blame on to industry, which is ready to rise to the challenge if only the Government would stop dithering over the detail of the regulations on the operation of licensed sites, the Government are trying to throw off their duties.
    The Environment Agency has warned that there will be more fly-tipping. We know that there will be vast increases in the distances over which waste must be carried, and that the Government's brownfield development programme may be jeopardised by that. Will the Minister urgently address the concerns expressed by businesses, which want to meet the challenge but are unable to do so as long as confusion and dithering remain the order of the day?
    Mr. Morley: First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role? It seems that Opposition Front Benchers are more into recycling than many other people, and I welcome that.

    1443
    I can be accused of many things, but complacency is not one of them. We understand that there are risks when new regulations and changes are introduced. We must work with that. We set up the hazardous waste forum with the industry, and I do not seek to put blame on the industry. I merely wish to point out that DEFRA is not in the waste disposal business. I do not know whether it is a new Tory policy to nationalise waste disposal in this country. If so, that is quite interesting.
    It is not the case that the details are not available. The industry knows exactly what needs to be done. It has been involved at every stage of the process—there have been six consultations since 1999, an independent report, the Babtie report, was commissioned to examine the issue, and we regularly talk to the industry and the Environment Agency. It is true that not all the sites have yet been permitted, but the agency is working them at the moment. Fifteen merchant site applications are in, not counting in-house sites, and the Environment Agency is dealing with the applications of 37 separate cell sites.
    A reduction in sites in the short term is likely, and the cost of disposals will probably increase, but that is an inducement to reduce and treat waste. We do not in any way take fly-tipping lightly. There are always risks, and we will deal with them appropriately and will certainly actively pursue the matter.

    Water Metering
    Mr. Robert Key: What measures her Department is taking to promote the take-up of water metering in homes. [180210]
    The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): We expect individual water companies, under the guidance of the Office of Water Services, to keep customers informed of their rights of choice in their method of charging, including the right to a free meter.
    Mr. Key: Does the Minister agree that we all need to explain to people that the ever-increasing rise in demand for water relies on unsustainable levels of abstraction in southern England, especially in the Avon catchment? The only answer is to use less water. The best way of using less water is to relate the volume of water used directly to price.
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He has been a long-standing campaigner in relation to unsustainable abstraction in the chalk rivers in his constituency. He knows that I share his concern. I very much welcome the fact that the number of households moving to water meters is increasing, and I agree that it is the most sustainable way to manage water. He will also be aware of a working group involving Wessex Water, English Nature and the Environment Agency, which is examining the problems of abstraction in his area. It reports to me, and I take a personal interest in that.
    Mr. Peter Pike: I am one of those who already have a water meter, although I wish that I did not. My hon. Friend will recognise that water pricing policy and conditions vary from region to
    1444
    region, and that the north-west is very different from the region of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Now that people are becoming increasingly concerned about the level of increase in charges for sewerage and water services, is it not important to find a way to replace the rateable values, which no longer exist in reality but have teen preserved as the system for charging most customers? They now have no relevance at all, and it is time that a new system was found.
    Mr. Morley: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but the alternative is for people to switch to water meters. Legislation provides for the free installation of water meters. An increasing number of people are choosing that option, and I expect that to continue. However, the price issue is very important, which is why we are carefully following what is happening in the price review and the work of the regulator. It is important to have a link between what people use and how they pay for it, and water metering is the best way of providing that.
    Norman Baker: But is it not simply indefensible, as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) says, to continue to base most water bills on the theoretical value that a person could get from renting their property in 1973? Is it not indefensible that there is no link at all between consumption and the bill that lands on the doormat? Is the Minister aware that, in my constituency, South East Water plans to install a desalination plant, of all things—we normally associate such plants with the middle east—to produce enough water, because the Deputy Prime Minister wants more housing in the area? Would it not make more sense to have a proper system of universal metering? Should not the Government give a lead, rather than having metering by stealth, as at present? A system of metering with safeguards for those on low incomes would be sensible for the environment and better for consumers.
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, because he served with me on the Water Bill, that water companies are free to apply to the Secretary of State to have powers for metering in their areas. So far, no water company has made that proposal, but the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that we have supported the move to metering. We think that that is the right way forward, but while there are many properties that are not on a meter, there has to be some means of calculating the price that they pay. I am sure that there are many weaknesses. with the present system of rateable value, but the costs of moving to an alternative system would also produce winners and losers, and that system would still have problems. It would not necessarily give anyone a better advantage. A greater advantage is gained by continuing to encourage people to move to water meters, which is why they are provided free of charge.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is it not a paradox that some parts of the country are awash with water while others suffer drought? What consideration have the Government given to constructing a national water grid?
    Mr. Morley: That has been discussed. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are huge regional differences in

    1445
    water. The eastern region of England has less rainfall per head of population than Sudan. This issue is one not just of development but of proper water resource management. The costs of establishing a national grid through pipes are very high, and the establishment of such a grid by linking river systems would have environmental and ecological consequences that we could not ignore. We must take those factors into account.
    Richard Ottaway: This question is about not just how, but how much, people are charged for their water. The Minister will be aware that prices are going up, but has he fully absorbed why? The reasons include national insurance and pension liabilities, a new tax and financing regime and, worst of all, a lack of investment in infrastructure because of an artificial price cut in the run up to the last election. The pigeons are now coming home to roost, with a 30 per cent. rise in water charges. Will the Minister accept that that is wholly the result of Government action?
    Mr. Morley: No, I most certainly will not accept that. We have an independent water regulator, although that seems to have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention. Of course there are issues relating to price pressures on water and I do not dispute that there is a combination of those issues at work, which the regulator must take into account. Companies take them in to account in their draft business plans. The biggest single factor is, of course, continued investment and maintenance of capital assets, which has led to a major clean-up of our rivers and beaches. That has led to the best quality water that we have ever had in this country. While no one welcomes price increases, people nevertheless want continued improvements in the quality of water that they enjoy—both for drinking and in relation to the aquatic environment of this country.

    Animal Slaughtering
    Mr. Graham Allen: How many animals were slaughtered in the UK to provide food in the last year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [180211]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Mr. Speaker, 27 million cattle, sheep and pigs, and 877 million poultry were slaughtered in 2003.
    Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister for that reply. Wearing his environment hat rather than his agriculture hat, he will know that it takes 10 tonnes of corn to make 1 tonne of beef. Does my hon. Friend feel that the level of meat eating—in this country and, indeed, globally—is sustainable in the long term? What research is his Department undertaking to ensure that we sustain our environment both nationally and globally?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I think that my hon. Friend is right to say that it is possible to feed more people on grain than it is on meat, but I would point out that the biggest increase in meat consumption has been taking place in the developing world, particularly in those countries that enjoy the highest economic growth in south-east
    1446
    Asia. The evidence from European meat consumption, which is pretty stable, suggests that it gets to a level at which it does not increase any more, while at the same time productivity increases at a faster rate. I am not quite sure that my hon. Friend's argument completely holds water.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: The Minister will know that my Harborough constituency is a beef-producing constituency that is dependent, agriculturally, on that sector of the industry. Will he let me know when the Government will ensure that the over-30 month scheme is removed so that we can develop the sector better and export meat to the developing countries that the Minister mentioned?
    Mr. Bradshaw: We are as keen as the hon. Gentleman to get the OTMS system lifted and our beef exports resumed. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that the beef sector has recovered since foot and mouth, and that beef prices are now increasing quite usefully. We are working hard in discussions with the Food Standards Agency and our colleagues in the Department of Health to make progress on both OTMS and the export scheme.
    Alistair Burt: At the East of England show last week, I was repeatedly asked by farmers and consumers alike why our food labelling still fails to distinguish adequately between meat produced from animals grown, raised and slaughtered in this country and that from elsewhere. Is the Minister satisfied that nothing further can be done with food labelling?
    Mr. Bradshaw: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, food labelling is now a matter for the Food Standards Agency. We are as keen as he is on having accurate consumer advice when it comes to labelling and country sourcing. Most of the meat that he would buy in supermarkets or from his local butcher would be labelled if it were produced in this country. We want to improve that, but it is a matter for the Food Standards Agency.

    Fisheries
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: If she will provide financial help for the Grimsby and east coast fishing fleet over the next two years. [180212]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Fishing communities are already benefiting from various grants, which will continue, but we do not consider it a sensible use of public funds to maintain over-capacity in the fleet.
    Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but I hope that he will not enter into any premature no saying, without first studying the report by Andrew Palfreyman, commissioned by Yorkshire Forward, on how to arrest the decline in the catching side in Yorkshire and Humberside. It shows that we have already declined disproportionately—more heavily than in any other part of the country—and that unless

    1447
    support is provided, that disproportionate decline will continue. Owners will sell their track records to others who are receiving Government support–a code name for Scotland. That will lead to the industry falling below the critical mass necessary to support the jobs and facilities onshore. The report also says that it might lead to the closure of one or more white fish catching ports on the Yorkshire east coast. I hope that my hon. Friend will study the report closely—I am waving it at him as I speak—and that he will consider ways of helping the industry on the east coast of Yorkshire to ensure that it does not bear another disproportionate decline.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I shall certainly study the report carefully. My hon. Friend is right to say that fishermen in his constituency have suffered disproportionately, but that is because the stocks that they have targeted—cod stocks in particular—are the ones that have become especially depleted. However, he is wrong to suggest that the Scottish industry is being treated differently this year. It is not: it has not received any of the tie-up grants, for instance, that I imagine my hon. Friend would advocate for the industry in his own area. In the end, the industry in his area wants a sustainable future, so that it can make profits. That will require recovery in the cod stocks, and that is why the measures that we have introduced are so essential.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware of the Wash inshore shellfish fishery in my constituency? Fishermen there fish for cockles, whelks, mussels and shrimps, and they are not interested in grants from the Government so much as in having a system of environmental health testing that is fair, compared with the EU. Has the Minister had a chance to visit the Wash fishery; and, if not, will he come and meet fishermen in my constituency?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I should be delighted to consider a visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I am well aware of the problem that he raises. We have been in discussions with the Food Standards Agency about the methods that have been used up to now to test the waters used by our shellfish industry. I believe that the latest statements from the FSA will address the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises.

    Litter
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What steps she is taking to reduce the amount of litter dropped in public places. [180213]
    The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): We are undertaking a number of initiatives aimed at reducing litter in public places. These include introducing a voluntary code of practice for the fast food industry, revising the code of practice on litter and refuse, issuing guidance to responsible bodies on dealing with drug-related litter, and reducing the irresponsible disposal of chewing gum. We also fund ENCAMS, the charity that runs the Keep Britain Tidy campaign, to undertake targeted public campaigns aimed at changing behaviour.
    Mr. Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as spending millions of pounds on cleaning up litter, we
    1448
    should do much more to deal with the people who drop it? I introduced two private Members' Bills on this subject, and I was delighted that the Government introduced section 119 of the Local Government Act 2003, which gave local authorities the power to retain revenue from fixed-penalty fines to enforce the law. However, some councils do not take advantage of that power, and I am sorry to say that one such is my own Waveney district council. What can my hon. Friend do to ensure that councils do what is expected of them, and make the polluter pay?
    Mr. Morley: I am very concerned to hear that my hon. Friend's local council has not taken up the power that it has been given, especially as my hon. Friend deserves much credit for changing the law to allow local authorities to keep she revenue accruing from the fines that they levy for littering. That is a very unusual facility, and it allows councils to plough back the money into tackling the important quality-of-life issue that is the litter problem. We meet the Local Government Association regularly, and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall take the matter up in those discussions.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: It is clear that the Government's action has not worked. There has been a 12 per cent. increase in litter in the past year and—given that the Minister mentioned chewing gum—a 94 per cent. increase in chewing gum droppings. Westminster city council issued 21,000 litter fines in the past five years, whereas Bath council issued only one. When will the Minister get tough on litter and tough on the causes of litter? When will he require councils to levy fines in a uniform manner?
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Lady will know that the Government's relationship with local government means that local councils have a great deal of autonomy about their choices and responsibilities. I am very glad that some local authorities take the litter problem seriously, and we are backing that up with our talks with the industry about matters such as the serious problem posed by chewing gum. Also, ENCAMS provides funding for awareness campaigns that are aimed specifically at young people—although I am sorry to say that the problem of littering is not confined to them. We want all local authorities to meet the standards of the best, which is why we have the local government quality programme. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), we talk to the LGA regularly about this matter. That organisation would be concerned if local authorities, having been given as much autonomy as is possible, were not using it effectively in the interests of the people whom they are elected to serve.

    Animal Welfare
    Chris Bryant: What plans she has to reform the laws regarding cruelty to domestic animals. [180216]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): We hope to publish the draft Animal Welfare Bill this summer. The Bill will update and

    1449
    consolidate over 20 pieces of animal welfare legislation dating back to 1911 and will introduce a new duty of care on all animal owners.
    Chris Bryant: I am delighted to hear what the Minister has just had to say. Many people feel that the fact that our legislation is so piecemeal and hideously outdated—going back to 1911, as the Minister said—is a disgrace. For example, it is still legal to tether a dog all day as long as it has minimum food and shelter. Will the Government introduce changes to ensure that RSPCA officers can intervene not on the 25th occasion that they visit an animal that is being treated cruelly but on the first occasion?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, the Bill will deal with the problem that my hon. Friend outlines; it will include in the duty of care an obligation to avoid treating an animal in such a way that suffering is bound to occur.

    Silkstream Flood Defence Project
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If she will make a statement about progress with the Silkstream flood defence project. [180217]
    The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Environment Agency expects construction work at Prince Edward's playing field in Harrow to start later this year. This site is the first of six flood storage reservoirs to be constructed in the Silkstream catchment. All other work on the project is expected to be complete in the next three years, subject to securing the necessary funding and successful negotiations with landowners.
    Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. He will know that the issue has been outstanding since 1992 when the problems were first identified. There is some local concern that the standards to which the scheme is being developed will not provide for the once in 100 years flood. Can he assure me that the scheme is the best that can possibly be designed? Will any financial assistance be available to Barnet council, which has to provide a significant share of the finding?
    Mr. Morley: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He is right. I know from many years of standing at the Dispatch Box that he has been a doughty campaigner for the scheme on behalf of his constituents. It is a £7.2 million scheme that will protect more than 1,100 households in his constituency. I understand what he says about the standards, but they are subject to a range of independent assessments and re views and the scheme will go ahead only if it meets the three criteria of cost-benefit, environmental impact and technical specification. There is a formula for funding, and the local authority will receive a share of the funding under it.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: As a result of the Government's decision a few years ago to prioritise flood relief schemes such as the worthy Silkstream project, important projects to protect against coastal erosion such as the one at Middleton-on-Sea in my constituency have been put off. Given that we
    1450
    have had a few years of focusing on flood relief, is it not now time to restore a more equitable point scoring system that will enable a number of delayed coastal erosion schemes to proceed?
    Mr. Morley: The whole point of the scoring system is to have an open, transparent and coherent system for prioritising schemes. It is not right to say that it discriminates against coastal schemes. In the past 18 months, the bulk of our expenditure has been on coastal schemes because they have come highest on the priority scoring system and met the criteria. Decisions will always have to be taken on priorities and which schemes to take forward. I strongly believe that a point scoring system that allows people to understand where they are in the priorities is the best approach.

    Departmental IT Strategy
    David Taylor: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the departmental IT strategy in delivering flexible, high-quality and cost-effective computer systems in support of her Department's services; and if she will make a statement. [180218]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): An Office of Government Commerce review helped shape the strategy and the approach to implementation. Effective governance is in place to keep the strategy up to date and take implementation forward, and gateway reviews have been undertaken on major IT initiatives that are part of the strategy.
    David Taylor: There is a sad inevitability that the strategy will put its faith in outsourcing despite all the evidence from failed large-scale Government IT projects. How confident is the Secretary of State that the legitimate interests of clients and staff will not be subjugated to the commercial priorities of the chosen IT supplier and that future Ministers and taxpayers will not be left picking up the pieces?
    Margaret Beckett: I accept my hon. Friend's basic point entirely, in that the development of new IT strategies has a rich history of problems in both the private and public sectors. It is not clear to me that those are necessarily automatically related to outsourcing. There have probably been as many disasters when people have tried it in-house as from outsourcing. However, the Department is pursuing a rigorous process and we greatly needed improvement in our IT services. The process is being peer reviewed at every stage by the Office of Government Commerce and my hon. Friend had the opportunity to question the management side about the issue in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee the other day. I assure him that we are mindful of our reliance on good IT and we have no intention of seeing our staff or the taxpayer lose out.

NHS Improvement Plan
12.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the NHS improvement plan. Almost four years ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came to this House and made a statement to launch the NHS plan. He said then:
"The challenge is to make the NHS once again the health care system that the world … envies."—[Official Report, 27 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 1261.]
I can tell the House that we are making good progress towards meeting that challenge. Today, I will set out that progress and our next steps in delivering the world-class service that people in this country deserve and expect.
I can confirm one principle at the outset. We will not waver from the founding principle of the national health service. Under this Government, NHS care will continue to be provided according to need and not according to ability to pay. No one will suffer disadvantage through lack of means, and no one will gain unfair advantage in medical treatment because of their financial position. The comprehensiveness, and above all the fairness, of the national health service are qualities that are already admired throughout the world, with a few possible exceptions, and this Government will retain them.
I can report today that the improvements promised in the NHS plan have been, and are being, delivered. We said that we would put more money into the NHS, in a sustained way—more than ever before. We have done just that, with an average of 7.6 per cent. real-terms growth for the last four years. We said that investment would help us to expand capacity. It has. Compared with 1997, the figures speak for themselves, with 67,500 more nurses and 19,000 more doctors working in the NHS; 68 major new hospitals built, under way or planned; and 224,000 new employees, 84 per cent. of whom are involved in direct patient care.
We said that those increases in capacity would mean improved services for patients and faster access to those services. That is now the case. There are now more than 258,000 fewer people on the in-patient waiting list, compared with March 1997. There are now virtually no waits of more than nine months for a hospital admission—down from more than 18 months in 1997. Almost 19 out of every 20 people are now seen, diagnosed and treated within four hours in accident and emergency departments—some of the best figures in the world. More than 97 per cent. of people can see a GP within 48 hours.
We said that we would put in place reforms to ensure that services improved. We have. We have brought in new contracts, new institutions and new services such as NHS Direct, which was used by 6.5 million people last year, and NHS walk-in centres. We have also embarked on the world's largest health-related IT programme.
Most importantly, we said that outcomes for patients would improve as a result of that investment and those reforms—and they have. To give but two illustrations, cancer death rates are down by more than 10 per cent. since 1997 and premature cardiovascular disease—heart-related—death rates are down by no less than
1452
23 per cent. or above since 1997. So what is clear is that extra investment and capacity have allowed us to meet the people's first requirement: a better resourced, more easily and faster accessed health service in their own area—not perfection, but solid, significant progress. But of course, there is still a huge amount to do, given the position from which we started. I would never claim that everything is perfect, and now is certainly not the time to consolidate or to be complacent; rather, it is the time to renew our radical vision for the national health service of this country—a vision to meet the expectations and ambitions of people today, of this generation, in this country.
That vision embraces an NHS that is not only fair to all of us but also personal—increasingly so—to each of us, offering all our people equal access to, and the power to choose from, the widest possible range of services of the highest quality, based on clinical need and not ability to pay. So today, the NHS improvement plan that I have published and laid before the House sets out radical ambitions: sustaining our record high investment; maintaining our improvement programme; offering patients an even greater degree of power, information, control and choice than ever before; and improving further the health of the population as a whole, targeting inequalities and promoting prevention as well as cure.
Let me give the main features of that plan. The first is investment. As the Chancellor made clear in his 2002 Budget, we are committed to sustained record investment in the NHS. Total investment will rise year on year to more than £90.2 billion by 2007–08, averaging 7.3 per cent. real-terms growth over the five-year period. I can confirm that all of that—every single penny—will be directed towards increasing capacity for everyone in this country. None of it will be diverted as a subsidy for the relatively well-off few to jump the waiting queue.
I can also tell the House today that under that new programme we will limit the whole patient journey from GP referral through out-patients and diagnostic tests and finally to treatment. There will be no more hidden waits—[Interruption.]—the hidden waits that extended to years under the last Government. I can therefore announce that by 2008, building on the improvements we have already made to the NHS, from the time they are referred by a family doctor to the door of the operating theatre, no one in this country will wait more than 18 weeks for an operation, which should ensure an average wait of about nine to 10 weeks for everyone: a maximum wait of years under the last Conservative Government for just part of the patient journey, but a maximum wait of just 18 weeks with a Labour Government for the whole journey—a measure of the difference between the two Governments.
In addition to that improvement in access, we want to fulfil our manifesto commitment and give patients a greater degree of information, power and choice over their treatment—not just for the well-off, not just for those with affluence or influence. We want all patients to be able to choose from a range of services that best meet their needs and preferences. We have been introducing that scope incrementally, as capacity in the NHS increases. By the end of next year, for instance, all patients who need to be admitted to hospitals for elective care will be offered the choice of four to five providers at the time that they are referred for treatment

1453
by their GP—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]. That pledge, which appears to be news to Members on the Opposition Front Bench, was made three years ago. [Laughter.] I am glad that they have now awakened. It is, in itself, a substantial step forward, but they will be delighted to know that I want to go further still today.
I can tell the House today that, by 2008, every patient referred by their GP will be able to choose to be treated at any facility in England—including, of course, their local hospital—that meets NHS standards and can provide care at the NHS price for the procedure that they need. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, I am being asked—[Interruption]—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
Dr. Reid: From a sedentary position, I am being asked what is different from the policy put forward yesterday. I will oblige the House. Let me make it clear that it would be nothing short of hypocrisy to come to the House and promise that greater choice will be open to everyone, while reducing or diverting resources away from the national health service to a privileged few, allowing unlimited waiting times by removing targets and proffering an advantage in access to those with money. That combination would in reality, reduce choice for the many in this country and in practice extend it only to those able to pay the charges outside the NHS in the private sector. That hypocrisy would be precisely the effect of yesterday's proposals from the Conservative party. We will not do that.
Our choice is in reality for everyone, paid for by the NHS and backed by further resources in the NHS, by continuing reform and by new patient rights. But there is another group of patients for whom local services in the community are important—at least to Labour Members—so we will extend the greater personalisation of patient care to people with chronic and long-term medical conditions. [Laughter.] Those people are not a matter for laughter; they are people who are suffering from some incurable and extremely difficult illnesses—arthritis, diabetes and asthma. [Interruption.] They are to be taken seriously, not frivolously.
Some 17.5 million people in this country have long-term conditions that cannot yet be cured and that have a real impact on their life. Providing those people with the personalised support and care that they deserve and need to live fulfilling lives should be a priority for all of us. We will do that by providing thousands of new and additional community matrons, rolling out the expert patients programme across the country and ensuring that the new contract for GPs delivers the best care for patients—thousands of new people in the community to help the 17.5 million people whose suffering was such a cause of frivolity among those on the Opposition Benches.
As the Select Committee on Health has pointed out, we need to ensure that the NHS becomes more than just a sickness service. We have a duty as a Government to ensure that everyone has the chance to live a healthy life, and to foster prevention as well as providing cures. The White Paper that I will publish in the autumn will set out in more detail our plans to tackle the major causes of ill-health, including smoking, obesity and sexually transmitted infections. We will do that by ensuring that
1454
the NHS takes a leading role, but that it involves other relevant organisations. [Laughter.] I note that the reference to sexually transmitted infections causes schoolboy humour among those on the Opposition Benches.
The plan that I have outlined today will therefore deliver a national health service characterised by access based on need, not ability to pay; free delivery to everyone, not charges that can only be paid by some; investment in the mainstream national health service, not cuts or diversion; guaranteed waiting times, not unlimited waits; queue cutting, not queue jumping; and a national health service fair for everyone and personal to each of us, not just to those who can afford it. It is above all an improvement plan to ensure that the greatest gift ever from the people of this country to the people of this country—our national health service—will not only retain its basic fairness and equity, but be able to meet the expectations of all our people in this new century irrespective of their wealth, race, geographical dispersion or social standing and background. That is how the national health service started and that is how we will continue in this century. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for sending me a copy of his statement, but we knew yesterday morning what he intended. He told the "Today" programme that what the NHS needs is "more targets". No one in the NHS tells me that they need more targets. They tell me that they need less bureaucracy, fewer targets, more autonomy and more resources which reach the front line. Today, we have heard the Secretary of State reiterate Labour's pigheaded belief that setting a target is the same as getting things done. It is not. It is the staff in the NHS who get things done. It is the doctors, the nurses—[Interruption.] Is the Minister arguing with me? It is the doctors, the nurses, the professionals in the NHS, the support staff and the managers—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an important statement; we will have some order.
Mr. Lansley: It is the doctors, nurses and professionals, it is the support staff and, indeed, the managers in the NHS who deliver health care. They tell me that targets distort clinical priorities and that red tape and bureaucracy stop them devoting the time that they wish to devote to caring for patients.
Let us take the Secretary of State's statement on his own terms. The Government have failed through their obsession with plans and targets. Let us look at the NHS plan 2000. It referred to
"an end to the postcode lottery in the prescribing of cancer drugs",
but the availability of some cancer drugs varies from 18 per cent. to 100 per cent. in different parts of the country. The NHS plan 2000 said there would be
"7,500 more consultants by 2004",
but the latest whole-time equivalent figure is just over 5,000. The director of human resources in the NHS has said:

1455
"we now know the way the target was originally constructed was not as helpful as it could have been".
On mental health, the NHS plan 2000 said that the Government would establish 335 crisis resolution teams, but the chief executive's report says there are 137.
On mixed-sex wards, the NHS plan said:
"old Nightingale wards will be phased out",
but the Commission for Health Improvement found mixed-sex wards and unassigned toilets in one in six of the acute trusts that it reviewed. On cancelled operations, the plan said:
"From 2000, when a patient's operation is cancelled"
they will be offered
"another binding date within 28 days",
but last year 5,500 patients were not readmitted within 28 days.
On dentistry, the plan said that the Government were
"firmly committed"—
in this instance Members will note that the NHS plan said "firmly committed"—
"to making high quality NHS dentistry available to all who want it by September 2001",
but 40 per cent. of children and nearly 60 per cent. of adults are not registered with an NHS dentist, and only just over 40 per cent. of dental practices are making NHS dentistry available.
On patient and public involvement, what happened to the letters on an individual's care being copied to the patient? That idea was in the NHS plan, but it disappeared. The NHS plan said that patient and public involvement would somehow be improved. It is my experience in my constituency that a community health council that did an effective job in scrutinising and representing patients is replaced by patients forums, and we do not even know who the members of that forum are. Labour's record is not one of targets set and targets met, but one of targets set and targets not met.
Let us consider what the Secretary of State is saying will happen. There was a lot of advance briefing about public health. We now know that there will be a White Paper in the autumn—as distinct from the summer, when he originally said it would be published. There is an epidemic of sexually transmitted infections. Cases of chlamydia and, I think, gonorrhoea have doubled. HIV infection has increased, whereas after the 1980s a successful Conservative-led campaign was fought against HIV infection and for safe sex.
The Government are now going to have a target on obesity, at a time when it is at a crisis level, as everyone has recognised far too late. As a result of binge drinking, young people are at serious risk of increases in liver disease. TB rates are up significantly and the Government have not delivered an action plan. Some 180,000 people have undiagnosed hepatitis C and there is no active screening programme. The Secretary of State talks about smoking. In his report, Sir Derek Wanless said that the Government's target on smoking was "unambitious". How likely is it to be achieved if the Secretary of State's attitude is that it is one of life's few pleasures? So the Government have failed on public health.
1456
Now the Secretary of State says that the Government are going to think about chronic disease—seven years after they came into office. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said in March that it was necessary for us to give patients greater control over the management of their care. Of course the Government are playing a game of grandmother's footsteps: we say one thing, and they follow along. But there is a big difference between the way in which we are going to deliver care for those with long-term diseases and the Government's approach.
We are going to design the service around the needs of patients, and there be an entitlement to a standard of care. The Secretary of State, however, says that he will have community matrons. Community nursing would be a jolly good thing. [Interruption.] The Government Chief Whip might like to know that there are 800 fewer district nurses than there were in 1997. She might also like to know that the number of episodes of care from health visitors has gone from 3.6 million in 1997–98 to 2.9 million and that the number of episodes of care from district nurses has gone from 2.2 million to 1.9 million. It has gone from 370,000 to 320,000 for community mental health nursing; from 930,000 to 830,000 for chiropody; and from 1 million to 500,000 for community dental services. We are not going to take any lessons from the Secretary of State about what is needed in the community—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I implore the House to hear these important statements with some civility.
Mr. Lansley: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Secretary of State says that he has now converted to the idea of offering a choice. He might mention that to the rest of his party, because most of them have not. But how lacking in ambition is it for the Government to say that by 2008 people should be able to choose which hospital they have treatment in? It is another illustration of the Government's lack of ambition. We said yesterday—again, if imitation is a form of flattery, I suppose we should feel flattered—that patients should be able to choose where they have their treatment. We want that to be true for elective surgery at the end of 2005. Perhaps there is a practical reason why that will not be possible—for example, the NHS programme for IT not implementing, the electronic booking system in 2005 as the Government said it would. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us whether that is the constraint on extending choice in 2005, as we intend to do.
The Secretary of State also says that the Government are going to set a new target for waiting times. What they are proposing that people wait four and a half months for treatment in four years' time. He says that that will be 10 weeks on average. Of course there is a bit of a debate about what the average waiting time is. We are told many times that the average waiting time has gone down, but a letter from the permanent secretary at the Department of Health says:
"we are admitting a higher proportion of long waiters off the list and the median is rising."
So there it is: the median—the average—wait is rising in the NHS, and the permanent secretary to the Secretary of State's own Department tells me that that is true.

1457
The Secretary of State's ambition is in four years' time to make everyone in the NHS wait as long as the average now. We are told that the average wait is about 10 weeks. In fact, it is more like 13. In four years' time, the right hon. Gentleman's ambition is for the average waiting time to be virtually no different from what it is today. What has happened to the Government's ambition? We said yesterday that we want waiting lists to be a thing of the past. Four years ago in the NHS plan, the Government said:
"Traditional waiting lists for surgery will become a thing of the past."
There you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is the difference between us and the Government. They had ambition and they failed; we have ambition and we are going to deliver. The choice for the public is clear: it is between a Conservative party that has the ambition to make waiting lists a thing of the past and a Labour party that wants patients to be left to wait.
Dr. Reid: That seems to have had a salutary effect on the hon. Gentleman's audience. In congratulating him on his appearance on the Front Bench, I must say that he was a bit let down by his colleagues. Only 19 of them were present, and one of them, who has now woken up, fell asleep during his contribution.
Let me try to deal with the hon. Gentleman's comments. I have now discovered why he does not understand the idea of reducing waiting times: he does not even understand the definitions. The truth of the matter is that for 60 years under successive Governments—it did not matter which Government were in power—the definition of a waiting time applied to only one third of the patient journey. It applied only to the period after the diagnosis to the treatment table. That was the only part that was measured. In other words, all the time waiting for a diagnosis and before it—the time between the GP visit and the first consultant visit—was disregarded. It was a hidden wait. So what we have measured for 60 years has been the last third. That last third, which is 10 weeks on average now, was years under the Conservatives.
I am not saying that that one last third will be 10 weeks in four years' time; I am saying that the whole journey—from beginning to end—will be an average of 10 weeks. So the Conservative Government gave us waiting times of years for one third of the journey and we are going to give the people or this country access within weeks for the whole journey. That is the difference between us.
Before I deal with the deficiencies in the NHS that the hon. Gentleman picked out, I will deal with choice. He said that we are promising today what he promised yesterday. That is not true. We are promising to put in the means to get to the end result of giving people real choice. Two things matter for choice. People would prefer to have the best treatment available at the end of the street, in the local hospital, with quick access. The biggest driving force for making people say, "I'd like to go elsewhere", is the lack of capacity in the system and long waits at the local hospital.
Yesterday, the Conservatives promised to give us unlimited waits by removing the targets on waiting times, and reduced resources by taking £1.5 billion out of the NHS for the minority in the private sector. They
1458
made a deceitful, hypocritical and disingenuous promise to the British people yesterday, and today we are setting out the means to give people a real choice.
I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about deficiencies in the NHS. Yes, there are grave deficiencies in the NHS. Yes, there are shortages of midwives and of radiologists. Yes, there are still problems of new hospitals needed, new equipment needed and more nurses needed. However, by heaven, after 224,000 more staff—
Mr. George Osborne: All managers.
Dr. Reid:—40 new hospitals and 2000 refurbished premises—[Interruption.] I am coming to the comment that the additional staff are all managers. Do not worry. On behalf of the staff, I will not miss the Conservative party and hit the wall on that question. If after all those injections of capacity we are still so short, does not that show how dilapidated the NHS was under the Conservative Government?
I shall deal with the figures that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) gave, which in so many areas were spurious. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition, from the Opposition Dispatch Box, made the most serious allegation in the most public forum in this country, impugning the staff of the NHS. He at least—now that it has been proven to be wrong—should have returned to the Opposition Dispatch Box and apologised to the House for misleading it. On behalf of his leader, who does not have the guts to do it, the hon. Gentleman should have apologised to the hard-working staff of the NHS. There are the time limits, where 20 months were mistaken for perhaps 14 weeks. That could have happened only to a Tory who was used to 20-month waiting lists for radiotherapy.
After reducing capacity in the NHS and introducing unlimited waits, the Leader of the Opposition then tells us that all waiting lists would be finished by the wave of a magic wand. It is Teletubby time in the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman really believes that we are in La-La land. Yesterday, he gave us a cobbled together, incompetent, unfair and inefficient replay of the record of the Tory Government, which was a disaster for the NHS, and no one will believe otherwise.
Mr. Paul Burstow: I thank the Secretary of State for the courtesy of allowing me a chance to see his statement and the White Paper before he rose this afternoon.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is entirely right for Members to bring to the House concerns and complaints from their constituents so as to get justice done, but that it is an entirely different matter to come to the House and parade a constituency case as propaganda? Surely that should not be what we do.
Liberal Democrats have supported the extra investment that is going into the NHS. At the last general election we had the courage and conviction to make the case, and we voted for it in the House. However, that investment will be wasted if innovation is stifled by ministerial meddling. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that one of the messages that many will take from the statement and the White Paper is that the Government still do not trust the NHS to do

1459
the right thing? The culture of targets and tick-boxes, which ties the hands of doctors and nurses, gets in the way of clinical judgment and means that the sickest do not always get treated the quickest.
The Secretary of State has outlined his proposals for an 18-week target from the family doctor to the door of the operating theatre. Will he be honest with patients and start collecting and publishing diagnostic waiting times now? When will he start to publish all the waiting times for cancer treatments?
When it comes to choice, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that access to health care should never be based on a person's wealth, and that subsidising the better-off is no more than a gimmick in search of a blank cheque? On the subject of charges—the right hon. Gentleman has waxed lyrical about the founding principles of the NHS—why has he not taken the opportunity today to end the scandal of elderly people being charged for basic care? If more people are to receive intensive home care, will they have to raid their bank balances to pay for it? Is that what the Prime Minister meant yesterday by the right to charge—a right to charge the sick elderly, the frail elderly—for their basic care?
Why has the Secretary of State failed to announce a long overdue review of prescription charges, something that is particularly relevant to those with chronic and long-term medical conditions? The last such review was in 1968. Surely it is not fair that those who, for example, have diabetes get their prescriptions free of charge—rightly so—while those, for example, with cystic fibrosis do not. Surely that anomaly and that scandal should come to an end.
As for making most use of the investment that is going into the NHS—at a time when seven and a half hospitals, effectively, are being filled every year by those who pick up infections while they are in hospital—why does the White Paper say nothing about improving the way that infections are dealt with in our hospitals?
The future of the NHS, as the Secretary of State has said in his statement, depends crucially not only on services that cure people but on all services that prevent and postpone the progression of ill health. The White Paper sets some targets in that respect, but will the right hon. Gentleman say, for example, on smoking, that it is time to accept the overwhelming public health case and follow Ireland and other countries by banning smoking in enclosed public places?
As for obesity, is it not time to introduce clear front-of-package, traffic-light labelling on foodstuffs to give parents and other customers the information that they need?
The White Paper makes it clear that the Government do not trust the NHS to do the job. Under this Government, choice is for the pushy and the articulate, and under the Tories we know that it is about choice for the wealthy. The NHS must deliver choice for all. That means making sure that we have good quality health care delivered closer to home.
Dr. Reid: I shall respond as briefly as I can. The question of choice goes much wider than hospitals. It is about giving people power. We all know that in the real
1460
world there are some people in this country who get choice. There are people outside the NHS who have money. They can get choices that are not available, or have not been until now, to others. Within the NHS there are people who might have connections, influence, a degree of affluence, relations, knowledge and social capital that others do not have, which informally gives them choice.
I exhort the Liberal Democrats not to get into a position where they are against what we are trying to do. They are against much of their own philosophy, in a sense, if they are denying people the empowerment to make choices about their health and health care. We want to extend that to people irrespective of social background. That means collectively putting the finance in to compensate for people's lack of money in their own pocket.
When it comes to decentralisation and targets, I want local decision making. Personalisation is about much more than either the secondary sector or just about the idea of choice. It is about accepting that there are groups in our society—individual, personal-type groups, ethnic minorities, working-class people, and people from the north of England as opposed to the south—who have suffered a widening gap in health outcomes over the past 60 years despite all of the advance. We are committed to tackling those inequalities. That is part of personalisation, as it is about providing care for those who are chronically ill, who know much more about their own illness and disease than they are sometimes given credit for, and information and support in the community to enable them to deal with the situation.
I shall not make any comments about the White Paper on public health because it has yet to come out. I note the hon. Gentleman's comments. At least we are discussing in the most radical fashion the biggest ever programme of potential public health moves. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I would change the criteria now by which we judge waiting lists. If I changed the criteria mid-term, I would inevitably be accused, even if it were to my own detriment, of fiddling figures. I have said already that we should be completely honest. For the past 60 years, under every Government, there has been a hidden wait, which we should now take into account. Let us do that in the next Parliament. We shall certainly look at diagnosis.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the so-called patients passport. It has been repackaged—the Opposition have shot the messenger and have given the new guy—they are going through new guys at a fair rate now—a little box with a new bow which, however, contains the same product. The patients passport reduces the NHS capacity and opportunities for fast access, forcing people to go to the private sector. The Tories are telling people who can afford half the cost of an operation that they will provide the extra money, but we can read them like a book and oppose their policy completely. Medical need, not the money in someone's pocket, should dictate health care priorities.
Finally, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will avoid the subject of snuffing. I have already been accused of being almost personally responsible for binge

1461
drinking and the spread of sexually transmitted infections, so the last thing that I need is to get involved in snuffing with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I warmly commend the Secretary of State on his statement and the Government's positive progress in health policy. I have been concerned over the past few years about the increasing consensus between the two major parties on a range of policy issues, including health. I am delighted that at the end of this week there is clear distance between them, on which I commend the Government. I should also like to commend the Opposition, because their policies are extremely helpful to the Labour party.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend about two things. First, if people are sent to private hospitals to be treated by consultants, whether as private patients, semiprivate patients or NHS patients, they will be seen by people who work in the NHS, as consultants work in both sectors. Is it therefore not nonsense to suggest that by putting people in the private sector we are increasing capacity, as we are simply taking that capacity out of the health service? Secondly, I welcome the fact that in the autumn a public health White Paper will be published. However, will my right hon. Friend reflect on how we can shift the focus of debate on health policy away from an obsession with hospitals and treatment and towards prevention and public health?
Dr. Reid: It is no longer the case that when someone goes into the independent sector they will automatically be seen by someone who also works for the NHS. Some of our actions—incidentally, they brought a new efficiency to private sector services, for which there was previously an unlimited demand because of rising waiting lists—have resulted in the introduction of additional assets in the form of treatment centres staffed by the best clinicians from the United States, South Africa, and Germany. In their own countries, those people provide the best health care only to the rich but they are now here to assist and add capacity to the NHS by providing services that are free at the point of need. That supplements the NHS and is not a substitute for it, and I hope that all Labour Members accept that.
I agree that the old way of doing things, in which we bought individual treatments at any price and were prepared to pay public money to the private sector, no matter what the price, was crazy, inefficient and unfair. That is exactly what the Opposition want to bring back. Just as we are achieving efficiency in the NHS, driven by targets, they are abandoning them, and just as we are introducing efficiency in the private health care sector, because many private providers are performing operations for us at a reduced tariff they want to hand the sector a big book of blank cheques so that anyone who wants to pay half the cost of a private operation will have the rest funded by public money, which is crazy and inefficient. I agree with my hon. Friend about the emphasis on primary care and prevention, and I hope that, despite the headlines that appear on choice, we all recognise that what people in this country want most of
1462
all is a decent, easily accessible, high-quality health service in their locality to which they can go in times of need. That is our first priority.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Many Members are hoping to catch my eye, so I ask for brief comments, questions and responses, so that more of them are successful.
Mr. John Gummer: Does the Secretary of State not accept that all waiting times are personal, as they affect individuals? I failed to discover from his statement whether he could meet the considerable concern about the amount of bureaucracy, control from the centre and the fact that people are not free enough, which would allow my constituents to know that they would not have to wait six months to get a hearing aid, would not have to raise private money to provide accommodation for children with diabetes in Ipswich hospital, and would no longer have to wait on trolleys all day in hospital, which is a current issue. Can he explain how he will stop centralisation and enable people to make those decisions locally?
Dr. Reid: If I may say so without ruining the right hon. Gentleman's career, those are sensible points, and I agree with all of them. If people are waiting on trolleys all day that is not acceptable, so I urge him to contact me about that.
We are trying to do two things. First, we are trying to drive the third biggest organisation in the world from the centre with a series of targets that we established some years ago which, as they are met, are not being replaced. Secondly, we are simultaneously changing the system so that patients have more power, choice and information. Gradually, 80 per cent. of the money and 80 per cent. of the driving of the system will be controlled by patients themselves. We are half way through that journey, and it would be crazy to assume that we can drive everything from the centre indefinitely. It would be equally crazy, however, to drop all the targets in our efficiency drive and just put in £90 billion without any objectives whatsoever. No business in the world, whether public or private, would behave in such an irresponsible fashion, and Opposition spokesmen would not have done so if they had not been so keen to cobble a policy together in a fortnight so that they could issue a statement before mine.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, unlike the Opposition spokesmen, who behaved disgracefully while he was making it. As my right hon. Friend knows, most people's contact with the national health service is with their GP, so what does he propose to offer GPs so that they can improve and expand local services at their surgeries?
Dr. Reid: The first, best and most important contact is in primary care, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, said. We have already extended choice in that sector, as I can demonstrate. A few years ago, a mother whose child was coughing late at night

1463
could not visit a walk-in centre where an appointment is not needed. She could not pick up the phone and ask for advice from NHS Direct, as 6.3 million people did last year. She could not go to accident and emergency and be seen within four hours. All those options are now available, quite apart from someone being able to see their doctor or a nurse practitioner within two days. We are therefore opening up the sector but, in addition, we have a new contract for doctors that encourages them to expand in an entrepreneurial fashion by bringing in chiropodists, nurse practitioners, and physiotherapists at primary care rather than hospital level. We have increased primary care funding for doctors by 33.3 per cent., which represents a genuine advance, and shows that we are taking radical action for everyone's benefit.
Mr. Nick Gibb: A constituent of mine told me yesterday about his appalling experiences after he was diagnosed with cancer two years ago at a London hospital. His CAT scans went missing several times, his notes were mixed up with those of another patient, and his consultant's demand that he be treated immediately was ignored by administrative staff. Is that not the result of poor-quality management and administrative incompetence, which are also the principal cause of the spread of MRSA and high levels of waste in the NHS? How will the Secretary of State's announcement today tackle the deep-rooted management problem in the NHS? Will not policies such as foundation hospitals, which increase the diffuse nature of accountability in the NHS, do nothing to bring about high quality modern management methods?
Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, after yesterday, I do not attempt to respond to the accuracy or otherwise of what he claims he was told by someone else who is a constituent. Yesterday should be a lesson to all of us, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said, not to use constituency cases, especially when we have not checked the facts against what we are told for propaganda purposes.
If the hon. Gentleman is making a general statement that we want to decentralise more power to patients to drive the system, the answer is yes. If he is suggesting that we need more and better management in the NHS—he is nodding—the answer is yes. That is completely at odds with what those on his Front Bench continually say—that we need less management in the NHS—but at least he is not making the mistake that they make when they continually portray all the new staff in the NHS as useless and unproductive bureaucrats. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that nothing angers the staff more than the constant implication that they are all bureaucrats, and that they are getting lots of money but producing no increased output. It is not true. The NHS staff, including management, but more importantly the 85 per cent. who are involved in direct patient care, do a wonderful job and we ought to be proud of them.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward the fruits of investment, which the Conservative Opposition have traditionally opposed, and reform, which the Liberal party has traditionally opposed. My
1464
right hon. Friend has brought those fruits to us in England, but will he do all he can to encourage a situation that allows his constituents, my constituents and perhaps the family of Madam Deputy Speaker also to benefit?
Dr. Reid: I am always willing to help when asked. Wherever people are—England, Scotland or Wales—there will be a choice at the next general election between two philosophies as regards the national health service. One of them believes in continuing investment for the 95 per cent. of the population who are dependent upon it, continuing reform and efficiency, greater output driven not only by the staff, but by objectives such as any business would have, decreased waiting times, and greater choice in real terms. The philosophy of the other party would offer the old theoretical choice that we all have—of dining at the Ritz, were it not for the fact that we were too skint to do so. The Opposition would divert money away from the NHS to the minority to help the relatively rich jump the queue, they would reduce capacity and, above all, they would introduce the right to charge. That seems to me a pretty clear choice.
Sandra Gidley: I welcome the Minister's commitment to fairness and equity and the NHS being free at the point of delivery, but that is all very well unless one happens to be old. He said little about choice in long-term care, and little about the fact that people have to supplement that care from their own pockets. What do the old look forward to? Would it be better to provide free personal care for the elderly?
Dr. Reid: It is a little unfair to say that I said nothing about the elderly or chronic care. I did speak about chronic care. On personal care, let us be quite straight. We have made a decision in this country that there will be free medical care for everyone, and that in the vast majority of cases there will also be free personal care. About 30 per cent. of people who are the better-off have to contribute towards their own personal care, not medical care. If we were to say that everyone including the best-off in Britain—including millionaires—would also get free personal care, it would cost us £1.7 billion, which we would have to take from elsewhere. We have made a decision, consistent with our priorities, that it is better to allocate that to those who cannot afford the medical and the personal care. That is a judgment that we have made.
Finally, I did not comment when the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned it because it seems a bit churlish, but it would be a little more consistent if what was suggested by the hon. Lady was not entirely contradicted by Liberal councils, including, say, Cumbria, which is introducing charges for social care for the elderly in the area that it controls.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the most important decision taken by the Government in the past two or three years was the brave decision to increase national insurance by 1 per cent. in order to ensure that we had the wherewithal to make the massive improvements that we have made in health and to make even greater improvements in the future? May I also inform him that I am pleased that there is a manager in the national health service—the Opposition call it red tape—who sends me a letter to go

1465
for a cancer check-up every six months? I am pleased that he is a manager looking after me. As for being a target, yes, I am pleased to be a target when I go for another treadmill test in order to look after my heart. In an era when technology is so important in the health service, we do not see all the people who are helping us dressed in white uniforms. In all the policies that we present, we have to please people and persuade them, but with the national health service, we must please, persuade and inspire. That is what we are doing today.
Dr. Reid: That is certainly what my hon. Friend did, as he always does, to me. If we were looking for the living embodiment of the huge benefits that the NHS brings to the country, we could not find a national treasure comparable with my hon. Friend. He is right about inspiration. Let us remember when this country decided that everyone, irrespective of their background or their money, would be an equal partner in the fight against that great disease. It was after everyone in this country, irrespective of their background, had fought against the great evil of fascism on the continent, when the country was on the verge of bankruptcy and after it had come through six long years of war. If we could afford a system that gave everyone in the country health care irrespective of the money in their pocket at a time of such difficult circumstances, surely to God everyone in the country apart from those on the Opposition Front Bench believes that we can provide it in this century as well.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: My constituents in Chesham and Amersham will not be impressed by the self-congratulatory statistics trumpeted by the Secretary of State, not least because they get 18 per cent. less per head than the average funding in the national health service. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be grateful to me, as I shall give him an opportunity today to put his money where his mouth is. He will be familiar with the National Society for Epilepsy in my constituency, which looks after people in the NHS from across the country who have a chronic and long-term medical condition—epilepsy. The NSE does not have the money to modernise its care homes. If the Secretary of State really means that he will provide those people with the personalised support and care that they need and deserve in order for them to live fulfilling lives, and that he will make that a priority, as he said in his statement, will he now agree to fully fund the Government-required upgrades at the entire site of the National Society for Epilepsy? When can I tell the chief executive that he can expect the cheque for £17 million?
Dr. Reid: First, whatever the hon. Lady thought about the deficiencies of what I said. I hope that at least she welcomes the fact that I prioritised chronic care in terms of people and resources and gave it the attention that it should receive. I do not blame her at all for raising one specific charitable cause and asking me to agree immediately to pay that £17 million. I know she will understand if I do not give her an instant decision on that. I look forward to even closer work between the state sector and the charitable sector. I know that the National Society for Epilepsy and others do a huge amount of good. I do not know the details of the case, but I hope she will write to me about it. I will demur from making a rash decision. We have had enough cobbled-together
1466
decisions from the Opposition Front Bench in the past few days without my making a sudden one before giving the matter the fullest consideration.
Tony Wright: The health service is now improving dramatically, and if we can avoid the idiocies of the Conservative party, it will continue to do so. I was interested in what my right hon. Friend said about giving guarantees to patients on waiting times. Can he tell us exactly what he means by guarantees in that context and what will happen if the guarantees are not met?
Dr. Reid: What I mean is that we already have plans, from December next year, at the point of referral, which is when a patient goes to the doctor, to put in the technology, establish the rights and customs and put in the resources to ensure that people are not simply told, "You will go to your local hospital, but go home; it will write to you in due course, perhaps in a week or a month, to tell you when you will go." We have already established a system in which people will be given not only a degree of choice—a choice between four other hospitals or treatment centres apart from their own—but an ability to book online at their convenience a time and date that is most convenient to them. We are going to retain that arrangement, but in addition, by 2008—we will be able to have the IT in place by that time—people will be able to get rough information about other hospitals and treatment centres throughout the country to enable them to say that they want to go somewhere else in England.
I should point out that, as we reduce the waiting times and increase the capacity, the normal expectation would be that fewer and fewer people would want to exercise that choice, but they will have the right to do so. If they discover that the area that they choose cannot meet the 18-week time limit, they will have the right to say that they want to be treated somewhere else or to go ahead and say that they choose to wait longer to get their treatment. If an offer from the primary care trust is not met within 18 weeks, that will be reflected in the assessments that are made by the health care commission, which eventually feed through to the allocation of resources.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that hon. Members in all parts of the House have shown total commitment to the health service. With that in mind, I wish to follow up the point raised by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) in respect of chronic and long-term medical conditions. Will the Secretary of State give the House a commitment that the Government will look at funding long-term chronic conditions and that they will not expect people to pay either in full or in part when they have diseases such as Alzheimer's, and also not expect them to he charged by social services when they need to go into a nursing home for ongoing care and treatment? That is critical. The situation has been neglected by successive Governments, and I believe that it is an injustice that needs to be rectified.
Dr. Reid: First, I understand that some people in all parts of the House are committed to the national health

1467
service. I do not question that, although it applies to some people, not all. Secondly, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and the passion and sincerity with which he makes it. It is a difficult choice. Of course, I would not want it to be thought that we do nothing for the chronically ill, and I have made further announcements today in that regard. We help with social work costs, and the idea of the community matrons—I mentioned that there will be 3,000 additional ones—is to help people to stay at home rather than go into homes. We pay all the medical care and, for about 70 per cent. of people—I speak from memory—all the personal care. We try to make that distinction at the same time as using the money efficiently in allocating the £1.7 billion that would otherwise be spent in giving everyone free personal care. We think that we are making the right decision. I do not pretend that it is an easy judgment. Of course, we keep it under review every time we look at expenditure, but I cannot tell him today that we are going to change the position.
Ms Dari Taylor: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which I believe was powerful and persuasive. In particular, I see community matrons as an excellent innovation, but I am seeking reassurance. Labour's 2001 manifesto stated:
"We will give more patients choice."
I have no problem with that, but I am seeking reassurance that the choice that we are making available to patients will be free at the point of use. I am most particularly seeking reassurance that, when that choice is given, we will be giving it because we have high-quality services.
Dr. Reid: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. Those of us on the Labour Benches have known too well over the decades how the incantation of "We are all free to choose to buy a Rolls-Royce" and the theoretical freedoms that are always espoused on the Conservative Benches mean nothing if we do not have the means to exercise that choice. Indeed, the whole mission of the party in which I was brought up was converting that theoretical choice for the many into real choice by giving decent wages and public provision. That will be the case. We will not introduce charges, unlike the Opposition. What we will do is take the public services, which are already fair, and make them more personal by building them around the convenience of today's individuals.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State has referred time and again to the national health service and to England, Scotland and Wales. Has he consulted his colleague who deals with the health service in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that some of the specialist units have to be located in England or elsewhere other than Northern Ireland because its population is too small?
May I also press the Secretary of State on provision for general practitioners? I am aware that some GPs in Northern Ireland have been told that they cannot even get a guarantee that they will move into new premises in 2005. I will take up the matter with the appropriate
1468
Minister, but it is important that, when we are talking about a national health service, it is just that, and not simply an English national health service.
Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain that the only reason why I did not mention Northern Ireland and referred to Scotland, Wales and England was that I was speaking in the context of a choice between the Conservative and the Labour parties. He would not want me to misportray the important role that he and his party play in Northern Ireland. Of course, the facilities that are used here and extended to the people of Northern Ireland will continue. We keep in close touch with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith). The last point is a matter for her, but I will see that we bring to her attention the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised it today.
Jon Trickett: On the subject of choice, is it not clear that there are now two visions for the national health service in this country? When people reflect on those two visions, the choice of the nation will be the vision espoused in my right hon. Friend's excellent statement.
In an organisation as large as the NHS, the devil is often in the detail. Will my right hon. Friend or one of his colleagues please meet me and one or two hon. Friends to discuss the situation in Pontefract hospital, where an inherited cumulative deficit appears to be inhibiting the further development of the NHS? In particular, will he ask one of his officials to look at the case of Mr. Jason Day in Featherstone, a constituent of mine who was diagnosed as suffering from multiple sclerosis? The money is available for beta interferon to be prescribed to him, but there appears to be a financial problem with the clinic allowing the diagnosis to take place. I would be grateful if he could look into those matters.
Dr. Reid: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, I think that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), has begun to look at some of those matters, and he will be happy to continue his discussions with my hon. Friend.
Mr. George Osborne: Despite the best efforts of the East Cheshire NHS trust, which serves my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), some of my elderly constituents face very long waits for the fitting of digital hearing aids. Will the Secretary of State allow those constituents to go to other hospitals in the region that might be able to fit such hearing aids sooner and greatly improve their quality of life?
Dr. Reid: We have made progress, but I note what the hon. Gentleman says. We are investing more money on this matter. While such hearing aids were technologically available under the previous Government, they were not available in practice because the money was not there to get them. Any delay for

1469
someone in such a distressing position is a bad thing, and we will try to look at what we can do to speed up the process. What he cannot do, however, is one day demand more efficient production of more equipment by more people in the NHS, and then tell us the next day that the Conservatives are going to take out £1.5 billion to help the relatively well-off to jump the queue.
Laura Moffatt: At a recent consultation with the families and friends of chaotic drug users, the top recommendation on the treatment and care of such drug users was more targets. Not only those who work in the service, but those who use the service recognise that targets are an important driver in improving services. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who advocate an alternative to targets are making a huge mistake?
Dr. Reid: Absolutely. No one was surprised when the Conservative party introduced incompetent and unjust proposals, and no one expected those proposals to be competent and fair. Those of us who remember the claims that the Conservative party used to make thought that its plan might encourage efficiency, but when it abandoned the drive for efficiency and reform through targets to match the big investment in the public sector, and announced that it would subsidise with public money anybody to pay any price whatsoever in the private sector, without regard to limitation or efficiency, it abandoned any pretence of being a serious contender to form the Government of this country.
Sue Doughty: We have heard little about psychiatric care, other than the important topic of Alzheimer's. Good psychiatric care can transform an individual's life, but excessive delays and a lack of resources can be disastrous for individuals and for those around them. Far too many problems occur in my constituency because of delays and a lack of resources. What hope can the Secretary of State give to me and to my constituents in Guildford that improvements will be made?
Dr. Reid: For a start, we are putting in more resources and more money, but I will not pretend that instant solutions are available in psychiatric care, dentistry and one or two other areas. Last night, I was amazed when the Leader of the Opposition revealed to the assembled world that, if he waves his magic wand, waiting lists will somehow disappear, meaning that nobody would ever have to wait for anything. Indeed, under the Leader of the Opposition, people would be operated on before they were ill in order to avoid any Form of waiting list. I cannot make such promises, but I can promise greater resources and more personnel. It is difficult to recruit psychiatrists and psychologists, but we are minded to do so and mental health care is a priority.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Select Committee stated one hour; I have allowed an hour and 10 minutes. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should examine the Select Committee's recommendations before he mutters and complains.

Business of the House
1.42 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): With permission, I shall make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 28 JUNE—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Human Tissue Bill.
TUESDAY 29 JUNE—A debate on London schools on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, followed by motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government has replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 30 JUNE—Opposition Day [14th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "Confusion in Regional Government Policy", followed by a debate entitled "Failure to Deliver Business Deregulation". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 1 JULY—A debate on Zimbabwe on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 2 JULY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 5 JULY—Opposition Day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
TUESDAY 6 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill (Day One).
WEDNESDAY 7 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill (Day Two).
THURSDAY 8 JULY—A debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 9 JULY—The House will not be sitting.
Following are the details: Tuesday 29 June—outstanding PAC reports 2003–04 to be considered: 1st report, "Tackling fraud against the Inland Revenue" (HC 62) (Cm 6130); 2nd report, "The new electricity trading arrangements in England and Wales" (HC 63) (Cm 6130); 3rd report, "The Sheep Annual Premium Scheme" (HC 64) (Cm 6136); 4th report, "Improving service delivery: the Forensic Science Service" (HC 137) (Cm 6155); 5th report, "Warm Front: helping to combat fuel poverty" (HC 206) (Cm 6175); 6th report, "Department of Trade and Industry: Regional Grants in England" (HC 207) (Cm 6155); 7th report, "Progress on 15 major capital projects funded by Arts Council England" (HC 253) (Cm 6155); 8th report, "The English national stadium project at Wembley" (HC 254) (Cm 6155); 9th report, "Review of grants made to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns" (HC 305) (Cm 6175); 10th report, "Purchasing and managing software licences" (HC 306) (Cm 6175); 11th report, "Helping consumers benefit from competition in telecommunications" (HC 405) (Cm 6191); 12th report, "Getting it right, putting it right: Improving decision-making and appeals in social security benefits" (HC 406) (Cm 6191); 14th report, "Inland Revenue: Tax Credits" (HC 89) (Cm tbc); 15th report, "Procurement of vaccines by the Department of Health" (HC 429) (Cm tbc); 16th report, "Progress in improving the medical assessment of incapacity and disability benefits" (HC 120) (Cm 6191);

1471
18th report, "PFI: The new headquarters for the Home Office" (HC 501) (Cm tbc); 19th report, "Making a difference: Performance of maintained secondary schools in England" (HC 104) (Cm tbc)
Mr. Peter Luff: I thank the Leader of the House for the business and apologise to him for the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, who is, as the Leader of the House knows, on important House of Commons Commission business and, despite his strenuous attempts, simply cannot be here.
Can the Leader of the House give us any information about the date for the comprehensive spending review? I know that the Chancellor likes to play such things close to his chest, but it is an important event in the parliamentary calendar, and it would be a great courtesy to the House if a date were provided at the earliest possible moment.
The Leader of the House will be aware of the interest on both sides of the House and across the country about the timetable for the European constitution Bill. Can he tell us when we should expect to see the Bill, and whether it will include the necessary paving provisions for a referendum? The Opposition are keen to have the referendum at the earliest possible moment; why are the Government dragging their heels?
Turning to regional assemblies, this week we were promised the publication of the draft Bill in July, but what really counts is the opportunity to debate it. Can the Leader of the House promise a debate before the summer recess on the draft Bill setting up regional assemblies? Furthermore, what is the explanation for the inconsistency of the Government's position on the two referendums on the constitution and on regional assemblies? Why must we wait up to two years for a referendum that everyone wants, which, apparently, can be held only after the most detailed parliamentary scrutiny, while the other referendums, for which demand is slight, are rushed through ahead of any scrutiny whatsoever?
Is there any news about the promised debate on Iraq?
When can we expect the outcome of the Government's review of Select Committee powers, prompted by EDM 760?
[That this House expresses its concern that select committees are not able to obtain from the Government the documents and witnesses necessary in order to fulfil their role of scrutinizing the Executive; notes the comments of the honourable Member for Thurrock in the debate on the Hutton Report when he said that Lord Hutton had been able to cross-examine John Scarlet in public, but the Foreign Affairs Committee was refused access to him, and that they had been refused the drafts of the September dossier but Lord Hutton published them on the worldwide web; and calls on the Leader of the House to institute a major review into the way in which Government and ministers treat select committees and the provisions of the Osmotherly Rules and the Ministerial Code.]
Has the Leader of the House done anything yet about the Sessional Orders, following the Procedure Committee's important report?
1472
Finally, can the Leader of the House tell us whether the Butler report on the handling of intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war will be published before the by-elections on 15 July or will it mysteriously be delayed until the following week, the very last of the parliamentary Session?
Mr. Hain: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. I fully understand the important duties that the shadow Leader of the House is undertaking, and we all accept his explanation.
First, I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's last question. The timing of the publication of the Butler report is a matter for Lord Butler.
Mr. Eric Forth: Oh please.
Mr. Hain: The former shadow Leader of the House shouts out in his normal fashion, but I suggest that he makes that comment to Lord Butler, with more courtesy than he uses towards me.
On the comprehensive spending review, I understand the importance of advance knowledge of the date. I am discussing the matter with the Chancellor, and as soon as we can give the House that information, we shall do so.
On the Bill to ratify the European constitutional treaty, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) knows that we must obtain a text that has been through the legal process, which is normal practice after intergovernmental conferences. That text is not expected until October at the earliest, and the Bill will follow in due course, so he must wait for the Queen's Speech.
The Conservative party said that it would oppose the new European constitutional treaty before it knew what was in it. One year ago, it said that it would oppose the treaty, and, a few weeks ago, it repeated that point before the final negotiations occurred. After the final negotiations, it became self-evident that the treaty is a good deal for Britain and that all the key red lines promised by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been met. Now Conservative Members say that they want to proceed rapidly, before they have seen a legally sanitised text. The Foreign Secretary has agreed to publish the political text as a White Paper in September, which is something that I am sure the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire welcomes, and we will, of course, want to debate it.
The distinction between the regional assemblies referendums and the European constitutional treaty referendum is clear, as I have said consistently over the past few weeks. A draft Bill on the regional assemblies referendums will be published before the recess, at which point it will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, about which the House has already been informed.
The two approaches to referendums are not inconsistent. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire will recall in respect of Wales, and you, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. Members will recall in respect of Scotland, that the people of Wales and Scotland were invited to make a decision on the principle whether they wanted a Welsh Assembly or Scottish Parliament. That matter was rightly decided before the Bill was

1473
introduced. We are now considering whether to ratify a constitutional treaty. Before we hold a referendum, it is important to prepare the Bill and have the full text of the final treaty before the House so that we can debate it in detail. There is no inconsistency in that.
As I have already made clear, we want to hold a debate on Iraq as soon as it is possible and appropriate. I shall inform the House accordingly.
I am keen to hold a debate on Select Committee powers and Sessional Orders. We will do that as soon as we can.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that opinion polling and the opinion polling industry are of central concern in a modern parliamentary democracy? Can he help me in my attempts to hold a debate on the opinion polling industry in the Chamber or at least in Westminster Hall? I have spent three weeks trying, with great help from the Speaker's Office, to get a Department to take responsibility for that. The Department of Trade and Industry passes the matter to the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which passes it back. I am not getting anywhere. Will my right hon. Friend intervene and bang some heads together so that the important subject is debated at an early date?
Mr. Hain: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's expert ferreting on opinion polls. He has developed a powerful case, which everybody needs to answer, about the role of opinion polls and their regulation, especially during election periods. The more he is encouraged to pursue that, the more everybody involved, including opinion poll companies, will have to respond to his points.
Mr. Paul Tyler: We greatly welcome the debate on Zimbabwe. Will the Leader of the House guarantee clarification of the Government's position on sporting links, especially cricket tours, including one-day fixtures? In his radical, Liberal days, the Leader of the House took a strong view on the extent to which such connections can give apparent support and endorsement to dictatorial regimes. I hope that he agrees that that remains an important issue. On 6 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I raised the matter with him. My hon. Friend said that we should seek
"an opportunity for all parties in the House to join together to pressure the International Cricket Council to change its rules to allow the cancellation of such tours on the ground of moral issues, without fines being imposed".
The Leader of the House, in an excellent response, said:
"I am at one with the hon. Gentleman on this. Undoubtedly, the villain of the piece at present is not just Robert Mugabe's despotic regime, but the way in which the ICC is turning a blind eye to that."—[Official Report, 6 May 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1503.]
However, in correspondence with ny hon. Friend, the Minister for Sport and Tourism said:
"I am not persuaded to lobby the ICC to change their rules so that moral issues can be a legitimate reason for tour cancellation."
May we have a clear statement on the Government's position in next week's debate? Will the Leader of the House please ensure that his forthright views take precedence?
1474
I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on the radio this morning saying that the Government may impose a three-line Whip on the Human Tissue Bill on Monday. The Liberal Democrats will have a free vote and I understand that that also applies to Conservative Members. Four prominent Labour Members, including the Father of the House, previously introduced private Members' Bills on the subject. Will they be forced on Monday to take a position that goes against their judgment?
Mr. Hain: Government policy on voting and whipping on the Human Tissue Bill remains unchanged.
The hon. Gentleman referred to my past days—they were my past, anti-apartheid days—in respect of white South African sports links. I have made my views clear on Zimbabwe. That also applies to the Minister for Sport and Tourism and the Foreign Secretary. We hold the same view. We wish that there were no cricketing and other sporting links with Zimbabwe because Robert Mugabe uses them as a propaganda weapon. However, we are not in a position to instruct the cricket authorities to do anything. The hon. Gentleman should not ask us to do that. We can simply express our point of view.
Ms Ann Coffey: Did my right hon. Friend read an article in one of yesterday's papers, entitled, "Women fight late nights for MPs"? It refers to correspondence that was sent to members of the Modernisation Committee for yesterday's private session. In the article, the shadow Leader of the House, who is a member of the Committee, makes a party political point. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a sorry state of affairs when papers are leaked, without the correspondents being informed, from a Committee, one of the aims of which is to re-establish the reputation of Parliament? Does he also agree that leaking documents from Select Committees is a breach of parliamentary standards, does nothing to enhance Parliament's reputation and is a serious matter?
Mr. Hain: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I regret that the papers that the Modernisation Committee was due to discuss yesterday were made available to The Daily Telegraph on the previous day by, I have been informed, at least one Conservative member of the Select Committee. "Erskine May" makes it clear:
"Once received by the Committee as evidence, papers prepared for a Committee become its property and may not be published without the express authority of the Committee."
That clearly did not happen.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: You will know, Mr. Speaker, that some important new clauses are up for discussion on Monday, including one that I tabled on transplants. I hope that you will be inclined to select it for debate. Is the Leader of the House sure that we shall have enough time for the important debate, given that he has tabled other business for Monday?
Mr. Hain: Yes, I am confident that there will be enough time.
Due to an inadvertent slip up, I did not announce the business for Westminster Hall. I should like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for July will be—

1475
THURSDAY 1 JULY—A debate on the report from the Health Committee on abuse of the elderly.
THURSDAY 8 JULY—A debate on the report from the Home Affairs Committee on asylum applications.
THURSDAY 15 JULY—A debate on the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
THURSDAY 22 JULY—A debate on the report from the Work and Pensions Committee on child poverty in the UK.
Mr. Martin Salter: The Leader of the House will have noted the generosity of the Chair in allowing time for discussion on the national health service improvement plan. Given the interest in the subject in the country and in all parties, will he consider allowing time for a full parliamentary debate on it, especially on some of the representations that the Secretary of Health will receive from the Conservative party? Hon. Members could then examine in detail the consequences for the NHS of providing a £1 billion-plus subsidy for those who are already sufficiently wealthy to have private medical care.
Mr. Hain: I should love to find an opportunity, in a compressed business timetable, for such a debate. It will be interesting to note whether the Opposition use any of their time for it. I believe that they will become increasingly shy about their intention to rob the NHS of £1 billion. That means £1 billion-worth of doctors, nurses, consultants, beds and hospitals in the NHS. The money will be used to allow those who can already afford to go private to have a subsidy and take it to a private hospital. That policy will mean the cuts, privatisation and charges in the NHS for which the Conservatives have become renowned.
Mr. Forth: May I tempt the Leader of the House to comment a little more on the timing of the EU constitution measure? He told us that the process known as toilettage will last at least until October, that the Bill may be in the Queen's Speech and will not receive Royal Assent until well into 2005. Does that imply that the referendum will not take place until the following year? That means that we cannot flush the EU constitution down the toilette until 2006.
Mr. Hain: I have explained the situation fully to the House on a number of occasions, but perhaps I should remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he has said about the European constitutional treaty. He said:
"With hindsight the European Union is not acceptable since we joined … The whole thing was probably a mistake".
He also said:
"The process of renegotiation is a precursor to withdrawal".
There we have it. That is the real policy of the Conservative party. It is supported by the right hon. Gentleman and it is getting lots of nods on the Conservative Back Benches and in their constituencies—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed. That is ultimately what the battle will be about. A policy on the European constitutional treaty advanced by the Leader of the Opposition, with individual Members such as the
1476
right hon. Gentleman behind it, would, in the end, lead us into a completely untenable position in the European Union and put us on a slow train—
Mr. Forth: A slow train?
Mr. Hain: Well, if the right hon. Gentleman became Leader of the Opposition, it would be a fast train out of the European Union.
Joyce Quin: Given that the commitment to allow people in the regions their say over whether to establish regional assemblies was in the Government's manifesto both in 1997 and in 2001, does my right hon. Friend agree that, rather than those referendums being rushed through, they have actually taken a more leisurely route than many of us would have liked? Will he assure us that there will be no slippage, either in the draft powers Bill that is supposed to be published soon, or in the holding of the referendums, whatever voting system is used?
Mr. Hain: I applaud my right hon. Friend's forthright support for a north-east regional assembly, and her eloquent advocacy on its behalf. I want to reassure her that Parliament needs to approve the necessary orders to trigger the assembly elections, so as to allow adequate campaigning periods and the timely distribution of public information in line with the autumn timetable. Three such orders have been laid today, which are subject to an affirmative resolution. The Government will shortly be laying a further order, which will set the date of the referendums, and the local government options to be put to the voters in two-tier local government areas. I think that my right hon. Friend can be reassured about that.
Mr. Roy Beggs: In April 2003, a constituent of mine in Carrickfergus received unsolicited mail regarding Government policy on Iraq from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which apparently acknowledged a letter that he was purported to have sent. My constituent wrote to the sender, S. M. McHugh of the middle east department, on 22 April, and then to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 2 September 2003, asking for the alleged letter to be removed from the record and not attributed to him. He was concerned because the postscript to the letter that he had received stated:
"The Foreign and Commonwealth Office holds and uses data … Such personal data may be disclosed to other UK Government Departments and public authorities."
Neither of his letters was acknowledged. I have been in touch with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at least half a dozen times, and I would like to ask the Leader of the House if he could make time for the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary or his nominee to come to the House and tell us why his Department has failed for 14 months to respond to my constituent's correspondence and to a Member of the House.
Mr. Hain: Obviously, I am not sighted of any of those details. I make no complaint about that; the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter quite properly, and I

1477
am sure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and particularly the Foreign Secretary's office, will want to investigate the points that he has raised.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: May I remind my right hon. Friend that, in October last year, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution on the Olympic truce, with the support of the United Kingdom? Since 1992, when the truce was revived, it has had some success—for example, during the winter Olympics in Lillehammer, when a ceasefire was negotiated in Sarajevo to allow the inoculation of all the children from both sides in that terrible conflict. With the Olympic torch passing through the United Kingdom this weekend, does my right hon. Friend agree that this would be an apposite time for us to consider, in a debate in the House of Commons, what we can do to support the Olympic truce?
Mr. Hain: I very much endorse the sentiments of my hon. Friend and the way in which he has made his point. He has the opportunity to apply for a private Member's debate in the normal way.
Sir George Young: Reverting to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), was not the real reason why the Leader of the House cannot give us a date for the comprehensive spending review statement published in the papers yesterday, namely that the Chancellor remains in serious disagreement with his colleagues and the statement has been postponed? Will the Leader of the House promise that, whenever we have the statement, we shall have a full day's debate in Government time before we rise, so that the House can examine whether the Chancellor's sums actually add up?
Mr. Hain: I completely reject the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that the statement has been postponed. No date has been fixed, and no firm date has been discussed either with me or with other business managers. As that has not happened, it could not, by definition, have been postponed. On the question of a full day's debate, we are seeking to find time in the business programme for a debate following the comprehensive spending review, and we shall see what time can be allocated to that. In principle, both the Chancellor and I are at one in seeking an opportunity to examine the review in detail and, in the course of so doing, no doubt to embarrass the Conservative Opposition Front Bench even more than we already have, thanks to Labour's excellent economic record.
Shona McIsaac: Some newspapers in this country carry a corrections and clarifications column. Will my right hon. Friend find a 15-minute slot each week so that hon. Members can come to the House to correct any comments that they might have made in the House? I am particularly concerned that, yesterday, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) asserted that a constituent had a 20-month wait for cancer treatment, when the national health service trust in question has stated that nobody waits longer than 14 weeks. Whether that comment was made deliberately or
1478
inadvertently, would not such a slot provide an appropriate opportunity for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come and apologise to the House?
Mr. Hain: I fear that 15 minutes would not be long enough for all the apologies that the Leader of the Opposition needs to make to the House, not only for the appallingly irresponsible use of that case yesterday but for the consistent way in which he comes to the House every week and takes an opportunistic line, yet is nowhere to be seen when it comes to pursuing it the week after. The same applies to his appearances in the media, so we should need rather more than 15 minutes in his case.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Leader of the House hinted that there would be debates either next week or the following week on the NHS improvement plan, which was the subject of the statement earlier in which the Secretary of State said that
"no one will gain unfair advantage in medical treatment because of their financial position."
Will the Leader of the House tell us how many people last year who did not have private medical insurance were forced, out of desperation, to buy operations in the private sector?
Mr. Hain: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has been correctly informed about the debate that he mentioned. The important point here is that, under Labour, there have been 450,000 more NHS operations each year than there were under the Conservatives. That is the key. Under Labour, the private sector is clearly experiencing great difficulty now because the NHS is becoming better and better, and is therefore offering a much more competitive alternative to those who, for one reason or another—particularly during the Conservative years and as a result of their legacy—chose to go private because they were not getting decent treatment under the NHS.
Kevin Brennan: May we have a debate on the music industry, and in particular on the very welcome development of legal downloading services available on the internet? Is it not the case, however, that such services will not be taken up if they are not available at a reasonable price to the consumer? Will my right hon. Friend ask his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and, perhaps, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to look into why British consumers have to pay more to download tunes from Apple's iTunes service on the internet than people in continental Europe or the United States?
Mr. Hain: I am not sure that I understood all that, but it sounded very convincing. May I just say that I hope that Cliff Richard's songs will feature prominently in any downloading of music from the internet? The Leader of the Commons is right behind Tony Blackburn in his choice of music.
Pete Wishart: May we have a proper debate about how our immigration policy is being applied across the constituent parts of the United Kingdom? Something clearly is not working. A young

1479
constituent of mine, Miss Jemimah Speed, is an Australian citizen who has been forced out of Scotland even though she very much wants to stay there. She has a job with prospects and is even planning to marry. In fact, she is an ideal candidate for the Scottish Executive's fresh talent initiative to get people back to an underpopulated Scotland. Will the Leader of the House look into this case, and do what he can to encourage the Home Office to allow us in Scotland to attract and retain people such as Jemimah Speed?
Mr. Hain: Obviously, the Home Secretary will want to examine the case closely. When the hon. Gentleman talks about fresh talent, I assume that he is searching desperately for fresh talent in the Scottish National party after losing its leader.
Ms Julia Drown: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on financing for development? That would give the opportunity, during these last few days when decisions on the comprehensive spending review are being taken, for the more than 200 MPs who signed the early-day motion calling for a timetable for us to achieve the target to spend 0.7 per cent. of our income on international aid, which was agreed 34 years ago, to put not only the moral and political case but the case that it is affordable. Millions of people in the third world who are seeing their relatives die from lack of water, food and basic health services cannot afford for us not to reach that target.
Mr. Hain: The whole Government are seeking to reach that target. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development are among the most well respected international champions of support for the poorest countries of the globe. The Labour Government have led the campaign to lift the burden of debt off the poorest countries, of which we can be proud. We have also been responsible for doubling the overseas aid and development budget in real terms, from the desperate situation that we inherited from the Opposition. We are getting there, and I know that the Chancellor will have noted my hon. Friend's comments carefully.
Mr. Mark Francois: May I reiterate a request that I made prior to the Whitsun recess for a debate in Government time on failures in the Royal Mail's delivery network? Since the changeover to the single delivery system, there has been a range of operational problems around the country. A recent "Panorama" documentary highlighted just how much mail has gone missing and the vulnerability of the new system even to fraud. That affects Members on both sides of the House and it is a serious problem. As the Government own Royal Mail, they have a moral duty to allow the House to debate this serious matter before the House rises for the summer recess.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to apply for a debate in the normal way. He will understand, however, that while we have all experienced difficulties from time to time, and the Royal Mail managers, the trade union concerned and the workers
1480
are anxious to improve the quality of service—because we and all our local postmen and women take pride in the service that they seek to achieve—the Royal Mail is responsible for delivering 85 million letters a day. We should concentrate on its fantastic achievements as well as remedying its shortfalls and defects, as everybody, including the Government, is determined to do.
Dr. Evan Harris: During Second Reading of the Human Tissue Bill, Members on both sides of the House, although the majority were Labour Members, explained how they were looking forward to a proper debate on the question of an opt-in or opt-out system for transplantation. On Monday, on Report, an all-party amendment is to be tabled on that issue. It is a true conscience issue and a matter of life and death for people on transplant waiting lists. My question, of which I gave the right hon. Gentleman notice, is: given that there are strongly held views on both sides, what possible justification can there be for the Government to impose a three-line Whip on the Labour party, which would force scores of his colleagues to go back on how they voted on the measure when it was in a private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer)? Is it that the Government are worried about losing the argument, or that they cannot make an argument, or is it simple control freakery?
Mr. Hain: I was going to answer the hon. Gentleman's question much more sympathetically than his last comments have allowed me to do. It is nothing to do with control freakery, and I am sure that he will regret those remarks—
Dr. Harris: I might withdraw them in that case.
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understand his position, and the different position of many Members on both sides of the House who may honourably disagree. I emphasise that Government policy remains that presumed consent has no place in the Bill. It is a Government Bill, however: we are responsible, and it has been subject to a great deal of consultation and scrutiny in the other place, which will also take place in the House of Commons. It is important that the Bill proceeds.
Mr. Clive Betts: Will my right hon. Friend organise a debate on industrial investment, job creation, and the role of Government offices for the regions in that? In that debate, I could discuss the excellent news that Polestar, the largest printing company in Europe, has planning permission to invest £100 million in a new factory in my constituency, creating around 1,000 jobs. That shows the resurgence of the Sheffield economy under a Labour Government and a Labour council. The planning department of Sheffield city council has worked tirelessly on this matter and the Department of Trade and Industry has been supportive, but right at the last minute the Government office for Yorkshire and the Humber has intervened with a section 14 stop notice

1481
that prevents the development going ahead on the grounds of some basic, spurious environmental objections, even though the regional officer has known about the proposal from its inception. I want that intervention by the Government office for Yorkshire and the Humber to be subject to the strongest parliamentary scrutiny, because my view is that its work should be to assist developments of this kind, not obstruct them.
Mr. Hain: I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern about this important project. The Secretary of State has been asked by a third party to consider directing that an environmental impact assessment be prepared in respect of the planning application involving Polestar. The relevant papers were received by the Government office today, and I assure him that a decision will be made as soon as possible. In view of the statutory requirements incumbent on the Secretary of State in this case to fully consider the request made, it is not appropriate for me to comment further on the request or the scheme involved.
Mr. Simon Thomas: May I ask the Leader of the House, who is also, of course, the Secretary of State for Wales, whether we can have an urgent debate on discrimination and prejudice faced by the Gypsy, Romany and travelling community in Wales, and particularly the use of that discrimination by political parties to whip up feelings against that community? I refer him to an awful and disgraceful leaflet published in Cardiff recently that alleged that a vote cast for the Liberal Democrats would bring more Travellers and Gypsies into Cardiff. That breaks every code, including the code of conduct to which all political parties are signed up with the Commission for Racial Equality. Unfortunately, that leaflet was published by
1482
his party, the Labour party. Perhaps a debate could clarify the issue and allow him to condemn his party for producing such an awful, disgraceful leaflet.
Mr. Hain: I am not seeking to defend that leaflet any more than the hon. Gentleman, I am sure, would defend a leaflet that circulated in Cardiff either in the name of his party or that of the Liberal Democrats, which had a picture of Lynndie England with a whip, and an Iraqi prisoner being subject to abuse, saying, "This is what you get if you vote Labour". I cannot recollect whether it was his party or the Liberal Democrats. Whichever party was responsible, it should apologise, too. The last day for tabling questions for Wales questions is Tuesday. He may want to take advantage of that.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Yesterday's reference in this Chamber to a 20-month wait for cancer treatment prompted a constituent of mine from Bungay in Suffolk, who was a cancer patient last year, to contact me. His experience was that within seven days of seeing his GP he was seen by a specialist, and seven weeks after he went to see his GP he had an operation, and he had a second operation three weeks later. This is not a false statement but a true case and, I believe, a much truer reflection of the national health service—a national health service that is not failing people but succeeding for the majority of people in this country thanks to the investment and reform of the Government. May we have a debate on this matter so that the true state of the national health service can become even clearer?
Mr. Hain: Again, I would love to have such a debate, and I will certainly examine the opportunities for doing so. Under the policy announced by the Secretary of State, the maximum waiting time by 2008 will be 18 weeks, compared with 18 months and more under the Conservatives. Patients are getting a better and better deal, month by month and year by year, as the investment pours in under Labour. Under Labour, there is a right to choose decent health care. Under the Tories, there is a right to be charged for it. That is the choice.

Points of Order
2.19 pm
Mr. Kevin Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that it is now abundantly clear that the Leader of the Opposition grossly misled the House yesterday at Prime Minister's Question Time—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Neither the Leader of the Opposition nor any other Member would grossly mislead the House.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Apparently misled.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Inadvertently.
Mr. Hughes: Inadvertently. It may well have been inadvertent, Mr. Speaker. I pass no judgment on that. What I want to know is whether the Leader of the Opposition has a message for your Office to apologise not only to the House for misleading it but to the people who work in the national health service in his area.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

ESTIMATES DAY
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
ESTIMATES DAY
  ESTIMATES, 2004–05
    Highways Agency

      DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT
      [Relevant Documents: Eighth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2002–03, on The Work of the Highways Agency, HC453, and the Government's Response thereto, Cm 6088, the Highways Agency Business Plan 2004–05, and the Department for Transport Annual Report 2004, Cm 6207.]
      Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Whip to move the motion, I should like to make a statement to the House. Given that two subjects are being debated on one estimates motion, Members will wish to know that the debate will be divided between two subjects. Exceptionally, I have decided that Members may speak twice to the same Question, once on each subject. We will begin with the debate on the Highways Agency. At a point to be determined, the debate on that subject will be concluded, and the House will move on to debate the regulation of taxis and private hire vehicle services in the United Kingdom.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That, for the year ending with 31st March 2005, for expenditure by the Department for Transport—
      (1) further resources, not exceeding £5,665,964,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 466,
      (2) a further sum, not exceeding £5,144,950,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
      (3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.—[Joan Ryan.]
      2.21 pm
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The maintenance of the roads system in the United Kingdom occasionally seems to be a matter of great emotional involvement. I never quite understand that, any more than I understand the undying love that some people have for the combustion engine. They are both particular commitments that have rather passed me by.
      The work of the Highways Agency not only is fundamental to the efficient working of the economy of the United Kingdom but provides one of the most basic and important functions of any part of our economic interest. It is therefore concerning when major difficulties arise. In debating this subject, I hope that we can refer to the work of the Highways Agency and to the eighth report of my Committee from Session 2002–03.
      Perhaps I should begin by saying that I believe that the Highways Agency generally performs well, and any criticisms that one has to make are on specific aspects of its work or specific difficulties that arise. However, my Committee was deeply concerned when we discovered, as far as we could see after taking detailed evidence, that in the period when we were suddenly hit by major snowstorms an agency as important as the Highways

      1485
      Agency not only suddenly found itself unaware that its contractors were not performing to the level that would enable them to keep our motorways clear, but was not aware that the contractors concerned appeared to be unable to communicate with their own work force.
      In the United Kingdom, we have an interesting attitude towards weather. I had a Russian friend who used to say to me, "In Russia, we know it will be cold and so we have big coats and big fires, and we are always prepared. In the United Kingdom, you know it will be cold but you always hope it will not be." I suspect that many of our major services are based on assumptions of that kind. It seems extraordinary when we consider in detail what allowed a major agency to be taken by surprise by what is, after all, a traditional part of the British winter: a fall of snow. We took evidence from both the agency and the Department for Transport, and it became clear that there were a number of difficulties. The agency said that it was well informed of what was happening generally but had not been aware that the contractors working for it had such an inadequate form of communication with their own work force that they did not know that many of the ploughs that were supposed to be working to keep the roads clear were not operating. The contractors appeared not to have a way of communicating with their own work force. What was more, that situation went on for such a long time that some people were trapped on the motorway in their vehicles for 11 hours. That must have been a frightening situation, and it is extraordinary that it did not cause a great deal more comment and uproar.
      Further to that, the Highways Agency did not seem to become aware of that difficulty for four days after the situation had become manifest. I have to confess that I find that extraordinary, and when the Committee issued a report it made it very clear that it thought that that was unacceptable and should not be allowed to continue. The Highways Agency did not have at the time, so far as we could see, an information system or a response system to enable it to deal with such circumstances. We asked it to come and give evidence, and we were singularly unimpressed with the performance of the then chief executive, who is no longer in charge.
      The situation was very strange, and it gives one pause. All Departments have developed stand-alone agencies that are nevertheless staffed by civil servants, who are responsible to their particular Department. Indeed, their accounting systems are only partially at one remove and it is possible for the Department for Transport suddenly to find itself at the end of a financial year having to account for problems in the accounting not of the Department itself but of a stand-alone agency. When we queried what had happened, we were told that when the Department was moving to a system of resource accounting, a system that had been discussed for a long period and examined by our Select Committee, it suddenly found that one agency had produced budgeting that left it with a major amount of money in the wrong part of its accounts and distorted the overall accounting of the Department.
      That seems to me an extraordinary set of circumstances, and one that I trust will not arise again. Not only were the Department and the agencies concerned given very long notice of the change in the accounting procedures that were going to come about, but the Select Committee looked at the move towards
      1486
      the new system and made various recommendations. We have said that we think that the accounting treatment of the Department and the agencies must be monitored carefully in future to ensure that if mistakes are made in the agencies, they do not cause the Department's accounts to be overspent. I should have thought that that was common sense, and it is extraordinary that we have to highlight that matter and make the agency aware of the need to look very carefully at how it is proceeding.
      We also said that it should be fundamental to the routine operating practice of the Highways Agency that the day-to-day maintenance of the motorways be fully co-ordinated. We highlighted the inadequacy of the control that the Department had over contractors. Just because a contract exists, the Department must not assume that everything is therefore going to proceed on a perfectly even basis. When we took evidence, it became clear that in many of the contracts—I almost laugh because the absurdity of the situation strikes me so forcefully—the Department did not have sanctions that it could apply to people who were not conforming to the contract terms. Why not?
      The Government are keen on the sort of arrangements whereby many private functions are handed over to individual companies and not left as the responsibility of the civil service. That might or might not be an efficient way of proceeding, but surely it demands that the least that we as taxpayers can expect is that the contracts will include penalty clauses. If not, why not? Can the Minister assure me that, in future, all those contracts will automatically include sanctions that can be taken against those who do not do the work that they have undertaken to do in the manner that we would expect? Even in our own homes, we would hardly pay up for an inadequate builder, yet the Government seem to be prepared to pay large sums to people who are not even competent.
      The Select Committee also believes that, although the Highways Agency was not directly involved in coordinating operations when they went badly wrong on 30 and 31 January 2003, it is essential to establish a method by which it can take direct control when faults in the arrangements come to light. It should not be allowed to sit back and wait for four days to be told that things are not working properly and that someone else has not performed adequately.
      In their reply, the Government said that the Highways Agency anticipates that improvements will come from its direct operational command and control. They talk about the introduction of regional control centres and a uniformed patrol of traffic officers. The Minister will know that I, being a rather cynical old bird, have some reservations about traffic management officer schemes. First, can he tell us exactly what training these new civilian officers will undertake? Secondly, where will the dividing line be between their management of the motorway system and the police's management of the system? Thirdly, is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to insist that traffic goes back into the core responsibilities of chief constables?
      It is extraordinary that the Home Office, in setting up the responsibilities of individual forces, does not seem to think that traffic management, particularly of our motorways, is a matter of national importance. I would have thought that it was one of those things that

      1487
      manifestly have to be the same across the whole of the motorway network. That can happen only if police forces have a direct responsibility and maintain the same standards throughout the whole motorway system.
      We said that the Highways Agency was sometimes producing results, but with inadequate information—occasionally with inadequate methods—about its own responsibilities and solutions when things went wrong. How much more likely are there to be problems when there is a civilian work force whose sole responsibility is to keep the motorways running?
      I have highlighted the difficulties that could arise if, for any reason, the agency's staff arrived at the site of an accident on a motorway before the police, and then took decisions that in some way corrupted the evidence relating to that accident. I know that the Minister is well aware of our worries about that. However, it is still not clear who is going to be responsible for what; it is not clear what the instructions to the motorway officers will be if they get to the scene of an accident before the police; and it is not clear who will take the final decision about the moment at which the motorway can be cleared and the traffic called on.
      There is increasing use—and increasing advocacy of the use—of the hard shoulder. This morning I received information from the Department and I looked carefully at some of the schemes that were being suggested. I have to tell the Minister that I am very concerned. Emergency services use the hard shoulder and find it very difficult when, for one reason or another, there are solid blocks of traffic across a road system.
      The Minister might like to examine the history of a particular site, with which those of us who regularly use planes as well as trains may be familiar. Part of the road to Heathrow is on a raised platform and emergency vehicles find it extremely difficult to get there when there is an accident. I have seen ambulance men come up the wrong way on that part of the motorway and climb over the barriers to get to an accident on the opposite carriageway. Where ambulances cannot get to incidents such as that, I am seriously worried about the advocacy of hard shoulder use for motorway controls. I understand the reasons, but I hope that the Minister will assure me that it will apply only to a very limited stretch of motorway. I am not convinced that, at the moment, sufficient note has been taken of the implications for accidents.
      Mr. David Kidney: Is my hon. Friend aware that construction work is now going ahead on the first of these schemes—on the M42 in the west midlands? Does her Select Committee intend to carry out further investigations into the safety implications of using the hard shoulder?
      Mrs. Dunwoody: With a member of the Committee in his place looking at me, I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot give a commitment on our future programme. However, this morning I saw the lists of people who were consulted on this particular scheme, and it was noticeable that many representatives from the police, the fire service and other road agencies were involved, but only one from the ambulance service. Frankly, that worries me.
      1488
      It has been suggested to me that, if the hard shoulder were being used for running purposes and an accident occurred, it would be possible to stop the traffic and allow the emergency services to approach from the opposite direction. Having spent 20-odd years helping in a medical practice, I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I saw the results of some very nasty road accidents and spent a lot of time trying to help people in those circumstances. I am afraid that accidents do not always happen in the way that the emergency services would like them to happen or in the way that some people have planned for them to happen. Before we make use of the hard shoulder a common practice, I hope that we set up a series of limited experiments and look closely at the results. I believe that there are considerable difficulties still extant.
      My Committee is not concerned with only the day-to-day working of the Highways Agency. We said that we found it, frankly, intolerable that it had no financial sanctions available to it. I hope that the Minister will assure us today that the Government have not only examined that problem, but remedied it. The Government suggested in their reply that there was a right to damages where one party to a contract suffered loss as a result of the other's breach. Have the Government allowed a large sum for legal expenses? If we are going to resort to law every time a contractor fails to maintain a proper standard, I can see some real difficulties arising.
      We pointed out that the Highways Agency was performing its functions, but that there were a number of shortcomings. The Secretary of State told us that the agency would have a much more active role, but we felt that the failure of operational communications and the failure to co-ordinate emergency operations had been revealed and that we expected the new chief executive to deal with those problems.
      I am sorry if I have rambled on across the various concerns of the Committee, but I believe that I should make one or two points in conclusion. If the Government want to set up and control arm's-length agencies while at the same time delegating direct responsibilities and expecting the tasks to be carried out, they must be quit clear about their methods for producing the final results. It will not be good enough for the Department for Transport to say that a matter is a responsibility for the Highways Agency, on the grounds that the agency controls the operational work on our motorways, that its officers are responsible for deciding when a motorway should be reopened after a crash, or that it must take responsibility for relationships with contractors and deal with them about breaches of contract. That may be the narrow legal point, but the Department has political and financial responsibility for such matters. Ultimately, it is answerable to the House of Commons for the efficient working of the Highways Agency and its ability to deliver the services that we expect.
      There is no point in waxing eloquent about the need for more roads to be built or for their better maintenance unless we are clear that it is taxpayer's money that is used for those purposes. Taxpayers demand that we in this House have a clear and identifiable way to call the Department for Transport to account when we think that the agency is not performing properly
      2.41 pm
      Mr. David Kidney: It is a pleasure to follow the distinguished Chair of such a high-performing Select Committee. I shall begin by saying something about the changing role of the Highways Agency.
      The week has been dominated by debates about public services and their responsiveness. We should treat users of public services with the same respect and attentiveness as they receive as consumers in other areas of their lives. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is pleased that the Secretary of State is well ahead of the field in that respect. I recall the speech that my right hon. Friend gave at the Automobile Association awards ceremony on 26 March last year. It was entitled "Treating Motorists as Customers", and it is pleasing that the Department should consider that people who use the roads should be treated as customers, worthy of attentiveness and respect.
      The role of the Highways Agency has shifted. Where its role used to be one of building and maintaining roads, its new role is as a network operator, responsible for ensuring that the whole network is used effectively. The trunk roads for which the agency is responsible amount to only 4 per cent. of the road network, but they carry more than one third of all traffic.
      Today's debate on estimates is important, as the strong growth in the Highways Agency's budget is due to the fact that its new role is more expensive. The agency will continue to build new roads and widen existing ones, but it will also make better use of existing capacity.
      In part, that is what the Traffic Management Bill was all about. The Highways Agency already has uniformed staff in liveried vehicles patrolling motorways in the west midlands. Some may be surprised at that, as the Bill has not yet received Royal Assent, but those staff are operating under existing powers, not the new ones that will be brought into force when the Bill is enacted. The task for those staff members is to tackle congestion and keep traffic moving, and thereby to keep customers satisfied.
      I am chairman of the parliamentary advisory council for transport safety, and I am concerned that the Highways Agency does not lose sight of its key function, which is to ensure that road safety is the top priority for road users. As they patrol the country's motorways, I am sure that traffic officers will always have road safety at the forefront of their minds. To that end, they will make sure that they remove obstructions, such as debris, before they cause a crash, and they will arrange the safe recovery of vehicles that are stationary, broken down or abandoned at the side of the road. Those officers will also contribute to reducing long delays, so that people do not get frustrated and take risks that cause collisions, and they will collect information at the scene of crashes that will contribute to the prevention of their reoccurrence. I hope that road safety will be improved by the new role of the traffic management officers employed by the Highways Agency.
      I do not suppose that my hon. Friend the Minister will want me to say too much about the fears of the recovery companies such as the AA, the Royal Automobile Association and Green Flag about the extension of the Highways Agency's business empire into the new area of
      1490
      vehicle recovery from the side of the road. However, I am sure that he will not object to taking one more opportunity to reassure them on that score.
      When we talk about road users as customers, it is inevitable that we will discuss what they pay for the service, and how they pay for it. Once, politicians did not want to talk about road charging for fear of offending people, but it is coming awfully close. We have congestion charging in London, and the M6 toll motorway is already operating in the west midlands. Not too far in the future, all lorry operators will have to pay road user charges. That shows that road charging is now a reality, and we must get to grips with our policy on it.
      The M6 toll motorway opened earlier this year. Its construction, by a private operator, finished ahead of schedule. It opened smoothly, apart from a slight hiccup early on when it had to close because of a problem with the road surface, and it is now being used regularly. I use the M6 motorway on many occasions, and I can attest that the toll motorway is a qualified success, in that it takes some traffic away from the very overcrowded M6. By spreading the load, it has helped to reduce congestion.
      Drivers, especially of motor cars, use the toll motorway in reasonably large numbers, but the high toll imposed on lorry drivers means that they stay away. That is a bit unfortunate: clearly, the operator does not want to meet the cost of the maintenance that would be required if lots of lorries used the toll motorway. I am somewhat surprised that neither the Conservative Government nor the present Labour Government ensured that the contract for the toll motorway contained at least a right of representation about the charges imposed on drivers. There are clear strategic national interests involved that we should be able to explain to the operator, so that they are taken into account when charge levels are set.
      Most of all, I want to speak to the Minister about the role of the Highways Agency in widening the M6. He knows that that subject is close to my heart; he and I enjoyed a debated in this Chamber on 27 March last year on that very matter. One of his predecessors as Minister of State met me and a delegation of local councillors in Staffordshire on 10 February last year about the Secretary of State's announcement—made on 10 December 2002—that the M6 would be widened. The Minister's predecessor told the Staffordshire delegation that the Highways Agency would produce new plans for the widening of the M6 through the county. He said that there would be widespread public consultation, and that the Government would put the plans in its targeted programme for investment by September 2003.
      Nothing had happened by the end of September 2003—nor by April 2004, which is when I asked another parliamentary question about progress. The answer that I received was that the plans were proving more problematic than expected. I was told that they were not yet ready, but would be soon. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say what progress has been made with the plans.
      This is a vital matter for the more than 1 million people who live alongside the M6 as it passes through Staffordshire and Cheshire. It is also very important for the top half of the country, which depends on the

      1491
      motorway for its main communications north to south. Many businesses in my constituency support the widening of the M6, whereas many other people—and I am one of them—oppose it on environmental grounds. It remains vital that we sort the issue out. Clearly, it is unsatisfactory that the Department should claim to have made a decision as long ago as 2002 when, 18 months later, nothing has happened.
      I lost the debate about whether the M6 should be widened, but my concern is that the greatest possible environmental protection should be afforded to all those who live alongside it. Some people's back gardens are immediately adjacent to the motorway, and they must be protected from the effects of the widening works and of the increased traffic that will follow.
      I should be very grateful if, when he winds up this short debate, my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about the Highways Agency's work in the future, and about the need for it to consult about protection with the people who live alongside the M6.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned the plans for active traffic management and I intervened on the subject. The plans include the regular use of the hard shoulders of motorways for running traffic. That is something that causes alarm and raised eyebrows among the public. Only this week I was speaking to another hon. Member about those plans and the hon. Member asked me whether I was joking. But it is serious. It has been done already in some parts of the world—the United States and the Netherlands in particular. In the Netherlands the measure not only reduced congestion but reduced accidents and casualties. So there seems to be some argument in favour of it. The worry is bound to be about the safety of using the hard shoulder for traffic when there is an accident. How on earth do emergency vehicles get to the scene quickly? My hon. Friend the Minister has to convince the doubters that his scheme will allow for that.
      I know from an Adjournment debate in which the Minister and I took part that the regional control centre will have real-time information and the ability to respond immediately when something out of the way happens so that the safety and treatment of people injured in crashes on the motorways can be ensured speedily. I would welcome the Minister's confirmation that that will be the case.
      This is a debate about the budget of the Highways Agency. I have explained how the budget is growing. I believe that its new role is the right one. It is a valuable role. It is important that as the changes happen the Highways Agency is attentive to the people who are interested in its work—not just road users but decision makers such as Members of Parliament—and keeps them informed.
      Recently my constituents and I received from the Highways Agency some literature about its plans for the network in my area. That is a sensible thing for it to do. It is a good use of public money to keep people informed so that they know about things before they happen and what may happen in the future. My particular concern is to know what may happen about the widening of the M6 in Staffordshire.
      2.52 pm
      Clive Efford: The lack of attendance in the House can be put down to the fact that many hon. Members want to use our highways to get back to their constituencies in order to be in front of a television set by 7.45 pm. That is a laudable objective, and we wish our players all the best this evening.
      I shall comment on only a couple of matters because my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has covered all the issues that the Select Committee looked into. It is worthy of comment that the Highways Agency on the whole is a very efficient organisation. Its actions go largely without comment, which is probably testimony to the fact that it does its job reasonably well. As with all organisations, it is in extreme circumstances that its preparations for certain eventualities are tested and its activities brought to the fore. In the severe weather last year the arrangements that the Highways Agency had put in place were found wanting in the extreme.
      The communications system was inadequate and seemed to rely on the mobile telephones of drivers. It was most shocking to us when we cross-examined people from the agency that once the gritting lorries had left the depots it was impossible to keep track of where they were, what they were doing and whether they had got stuck themselves. That was clearly a failure of the agency to put in place adequate procedures to maintain an efficient service when it was most needed by people on our road network.
      The other issue that came to light in that cross-examination, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has referred, was the lack of penalty clauses in the contracts for private contractors. My hon. Friend the Minister has obviously taken that message on board because I can see him nodding, but the problem needs to be stressed and emphasised. We need to ensure that we do not fall down on that issue in future. If we are setting aside seriously large sums of money for litigation to deal with penalty clauses, perhaps we ought to consider an in-house service over which we have more direct control so that we do not rely on so many contracts that are perhaps not as enforceable as we would like.
      Another issue to which I should like to draw attention, and which was also referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, is the role of the police and the Highways Agency at the time of a severe accident on the road network. The issue concerns who takes control at that point, and who has responsibility for reopening the road. A clear protocol needs to be drawn up to ensure that the responsibilities are clear. Responsibility for the road network and enforcement of the relevant laws should clearly lie with the police. It has been emphasised recently—not just in evidence to our Committee—that there is a link between crime and antisocial behaviour and traffic offences, so we would create difficulties for ourselves if we separated the responsibilities for traffic management and for enforcement. There is increasing concern in our communities about antisocial behaviour and we are trying to build partnerships between local authorities, the police and other agencies. At times, that can prove to be difficult. New powers have been handed to the police to deal with antisocial behaviour. I am finding it excruciatingly difficult to get the local authority to go

      1493
      along with what the police want to do to deal with the problems. I use that as an example of how the police may lose out on essential information and intelligence if they lose the responsibility for traffic management and traffic issues.
      In the knowledge that hon. Members who are present may want to get back to their constituencies, I will conclude my comments.
      2.57 pm
      Mr. Paul Marsden: This is a useful debate, and it is a pity that for the most part only eight hon. Members have been present in the Chamber. It is important that the House hold to account the Minister and in turn Government Departments and agencies following Select Committee reports. The Highways Agency has a budget of some £4.6 billion, which is bigger than the whole international development budget. Clearly, an enormous amount of expenditure goes on the maintenance and expansion of our road network. Hence it is a pity that more hon. Members are not able to take part in the debate.
      I wish to highlight a number of issues. I pay tribute to the staff of the Highways Agency; they do an exceptionally good job. The tragedy is that only when mistakes are made do they come to the fore, whereas they play an important role in keeping our roads moving day to day—some 5,860 miles of motorways and trunk roads.
      The aim of the Highways Agency stated in its business plan is:
      "Safe Roads, Reliable Journeys, Informed Travellers."
      For the most part, it achieves that It aims to reduce congestion, improve reliability, and improve road safety while respecting the environment and seeking feedback from customers. I know that the roads Minister likes to mention the fact that the Highways Agency plants more trees than any other organisation in the country.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): After the Forestry Commission.
      Mr. Marsden: Absolutely. I pay tribute to what the agency does to put something back into the environment, even though obviously with road expansion and building it has to take something out. I saw that at first hand when the A5-Nesscliffe bypass was built. The Highways Agency in conjunction with the Environment Agency and the local authority did a superb job in protecting badger setts and other wildlife during and after construction. They were extremely professional in mitigating the damage to the environment.
      I was slightly alarmed to note that customer satisfaction levels have fallen in respect of the performance of the Highways Agency on motorways and trunk roads. That applies to several of the criteria, including the availability of phones, provision of signs, clarity of signs, positioning of signs, availability of variable message signs and the maintenance of signs. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that and flesh out the details of the actions that the Highways Agency has taken to improve customer satisfaction. I make no apology for raising that issue, but I should put it into
      1494
      context by saying that the satisfaction level of road users is still around 80 per cent. Most businesses would be happy to achieve such levels, but it is worrying that the trend is downwards.
      I know that an extra 600 or so variable message signs have been installed in the past year, but many motorists get frustrated if those signs are not up to date. There is nothing worse than receiving while driving information that turns out not to be true, such as a lane closure ahead or the need to reduce speed.
      The Highways Agency deserves credit for reducing the casualty rates in the past seven years. It is on target to continue to reduce those rates. I worry that the agency does not seem to be achieving its target to reduce the number of slight injuries, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that improvements will be made and the agency will get back on schedule in that area.
      As the Transport Committee pointed out and as our Chairman has mentioned, just one inch of snow in January 2003, combined with the failure of the agency's contractors to send out gritting lorries, resulted in thousands of motorists being stranded in north London and Essex. The Government's reply to the report set out the development of contingency plans, which the agency has tested by undertaking
      "an additional technical audit of … winter maintenance plans, and … an emergency exercise."
      What were the results of that audit and what improvements have been made?
      The Committee also pointed out that
      "It is intolerable that the Highways Agency has no immediate financial sanction available where a contractor fails to keep the motorway and trunk roads system free of ice and open."
      The Committee Chairman also mentioned that issue and she said that new maintenance contracts were now in place. Those contracts include new termination clauses, but I wonder whether those clauses could be invoked quickly enough to allow another contractor to take over at a moment's notice. It would be no help to motorists stranded by ice and snow if the contractors who were not doing their job could not be replaced quickly.
      Other hon. Members have made valuable contributions this afternoon about the work of the Highways Agency, including the need to expand certain roads. As I mentioned, my constituency has a new bypass, which has improved air quality and reduced pollution, especially for St. Andrew's school, which used to have thousands of vehicles pass its doors every day. It was also very difficult to cross the road outside the school, but that has now changed. The A5 is part of the trans-European national network, so it is very important.
      I accept the case for some road expansion and some new roads—such as the M6 toll road, which has been very successful. Indeed, I use it myself and it is very convenient. However, I worry that we will continue to expand and build new roads at the expense of the environment. We need a new, concerted effort to try to reduce the amount of congestion and traffic on our roads.
      I am also concerned about the bureaucracy and red tape that seem to bind the 1,780 staff of the agency. Last year in my constituency, we had the case of Dorrington

      1495
      village. That village is on the A49, one of the main roads that runs north to south through the English and Welsh Marches. The A49 is a major tourist route and, at the height of the summer season, the agency decided to close half that road to repair a railway bridge. I know that the work was essential, but it took six months to complete. Lack of consultation and poor communication from the regional office and the chief executive's office made it difficult for the agency to win over local hearts and minds and convince people that it was doing a good job.
      As the Chairman of our Committee pointed out, failures can be very costly. For example, the Thelwall viaduct project has gone hopelessly wrong. It was refurbished in 1996 at a cost of some £30 million. It is an important viaduct that carries some 180,000 vehicles every day. A spot check revealed terrible failings in the bearings, some of which had almost split in half. Remedial work is under way and will probably continue for another year, and the total cost will be an additional £24 million. Who was responsible for that? Will that extra £24 million come out of the agency's budget? Is legal action against the contractors pending? Can the Minister assure the House that such a failure will not happen again?
      3.7 pm
      : I congratulate the Transport Committee and its robust Chairman, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), on yet another excellent report. However, it is disappointing that the main subject matter dates back to January 2003. The Committee's inquiry was set up then; it took evidence in March 2003; and it waited for more evidence in answer to its questions from the Highways Agency that did not arrive until May 2003. The report was not produced until October 2003 and it is now June 2004. Inevitably, much of the material is out of date, although it is clear that the agency has learned its lesson and is apologetic about the way in which it let down the motoring public in the winter of 2003.
      I thought that today we should test the Minister on the genuineness—or otherwise—of the Government's roads policy. The excellent contribution from the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) is a good lead into that test. The hon. Gentleman pointed to the way in which the Government speak with forked tongue on the issue of the widening of the M6. He told us that the Government announced their plans in 2002 and promised that the project would be incorporated in the targeted programme of improvements by September 2003. However, it is still not in that programme. Appendix 5 of the Highways Agency's business plan for 2004–05 contains a long list of major motorway improvement schemes, under the heading "Summary of Expected Delivery for Major Schemes on the M1, M6 and M25."
      A large number of those schemes—the M1 junction 21 to junction 30 widening, the M1 junction 30 to junction 31 widening, the M1 junction 31 to junction 33 widening, the M1 junction 33 to junction 35A widening, the M1 junction 35A to junction 39 widening, the M1 junction 39 to junction 42 widening, the M6 junction
      1496
      11A to junction 19 widening, the M25 junction 1b to junction 3 widening, the M25 junction 5 to junction 7 widening, the M25 junction 16 to junction 23 widening, the M25 junction 23 to junction 27 widening, the M25 junction 27 to junction 31 widening and the A12/M25 Brook street interchange—to which the Government have given priority are not yet included in the targeted programme for improvements. I do not want to depress the hon. Member for Stafford, who is keen to get his local scheme into the programme, but the Government already estimate that expenditure on the 91 schemes already in the TPI is in the order of £8.6 billion. That figure comes from the Highways Agency report of April 2004. As £8.6 billion-worth of work is already in the programme, and all those other schemes are waiting to go into it, one is left with the grave suspicion that the Government intend to go into a general election having promised the earth but without having put any money into the programme they say they support.
      At least the Government have changed their rhetoric. Back in 1997, it was that we should spend no more money on roads; they said that the way to control the traffic problem was not to provide more money for roads but to force people on to public transport. Now, the Government have changed that rhetoric and are talking about strategies for improving our road infrastructure.
      Recent correspondence epitomises the fact that a huge alliance has built up on the matter—it is not something that concerns only Opposition Members. A letter published in the Financial Times last week was signed not only by those the Government would describe as the usual suspects in the campaign for improved road infrastructure, but by members of other organisations that have never before combined in such an alliance. They recognise, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich pointed out, that our highway infrastructure is fundamental to the competitiveness of our economy.
      The Government have set out a programme of targeted improvements but they are not delivering. They are holding back on adding new schemes and they are not even beginning work on the schemes already in the programme and due to start. On page 1 of the foreword to the Highways Agency business plan for this year, its chief executive states:
      "We expect to add 29 miles … of new capacity by completing seven major improvements. A further eight schemes will start construction during the year, and many other projects in the Government's targeted programme of improvements will progress through consultative and statutory processes."
      If eight schemes start this year and no others are added to the TPI, that still means that work will not have started on 73 or 74 schemes already in the TPI.
      If the Government were really committed to mending their ways and to delivering road improvements, one might have expected to see the start of work on some of the schemes that the chief executive of the Highways Agency said would begin in this financial year. Unfortunately, that is not what has happened. Appendix 6 of the business plan lists the expected delivery for schemes
      "currently in the TPI as at 3 March 2004".
      It includes the following starts of works: the A14 Rookery crossroads grade separated junction; the A249 Iwade-Queenborough improvement; the A421 Great

      1497
      Barford bypass; the A47 Thorney bypass; the A5 Weeford-Fazeley improvement; the A63 Melton grade separated junction; the M4 juncton 18 eastbound diverge and the M5 junctions 17–18 northbound climbing lane. But, in each case, before the words "start of works" there is an asterisk, which leads us to the phrase
      "Start of works dependent on the outcome of the Spending Review 2004".
      Why should all those schemes be dependent on the outcome of the spending review when the Government have already signed up for and committed to a 10-year programme? The programme runs from 2002 and was revised in December 2002.
      In its evidence to the Select Committee, the Freight Transport Association pointed out that the Government's review of the 10-year plan showed that there would be an increase of up to 15 per cent. in road traffic congestion on strategic roads by 2010, compared with their original pledge to reduce traffic congestion by that date. More significant, and more worrying, the FTA said that if the plan was not delivered, congestion on our strategic road network could be up to 67 per cent. worse than in 2000. The Government's dilatory progress on their roads programme suggests that they expect, and are content, that the plan will not be delivered and that that could lead to congestion on the strategic roads network that is up to 67 per cent. worse at the end of the 10-year plan than it was at the beginning.
      When the Secretary of State for Health made his statement earlier today, he did not say that everything he was promising was dependent on the outcome of the spending review. Expenditure on railways has run out of control due to the Government's botched attempts to renationalise parts of the railway network and, as a consequence, the Department for Transport, with a limited budget, will only be able to balance the books by penalising, once again, the roads programme and especially the Highways Agency, which is charged with the important responsibility of delivering that programme. Will the Minister assure us that schemes whose start was promised for this year will actually begin? If he cannot even guarantee that those schemes will start, what hope is there for the other schemes already in the TPI, let alone the ones that the Government have led people to believe will be included in future? A big logjam is building up, and the Government have raised expectations to try to calm all those people who are rightly aggrieved about the prospect of much worse congestion on our roads. That is just the rhetoric, but we have the opportunity in this afternoon's debate to examine whether the Government are delivering.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and her Select Committee will look in more detail at what the Government are delivering, as against what they have promised. The Highways Agency business plan says that about £265 million in capital is expected to be spent on the highway network this year, as against the programme of £8.6 billion contained in the targeted programme for improvement. At that rate, that expenditure would take about 20 or 30 years to deliver, and the Government are not even continuing the programme at that rate. Although they say that they will invest £265 million this year, they have not yet started work on any of those schemes. Of course, one of the
      1498
      great virtues of starting work on highway schemes in the late spring or early summer is that the major earthworks can be carried out in the best weather conditions.
      I suspect that the Government will delay the start of all those works even further and that they will then come to the House to suggest to hon. Members that they are making a grand gesture by announcing the start of works, after not announcing any for a long time before. That will contribute to the logjam in the programme. That is just so unfair to the motoring public, who pay the highest fuel and motoring taxes of any country in Europe. This year, they will pay the best part of £42 billion in taxes to the Government, but the Government are not even delivering them £265 million in capital investment in the highway network. That is very serious indeed.
      A number of hon. Members have commented on the relatively poor attendance at the debate. I do not think that that matters; it is a question of whether the Minister is prepared to face up and respond to the strength of feeling among the motoring public and business interests in the country about the fact that the Government are badly letting down business and the motoring public by neglecting their prime responsibilities to ensure that the highway network is in a fit and proper condition to deliver the competitiveness that this nation demands. At the moment, the Government are failing in that responsibility.
      The Highways Agency is charged with looking after assets worth some £65 billion—a really big business responsibility—and one would have thought that the Government would be more prepared to contribute to ensuring that that network is maintained and improved.
      Mr. Paul Marsden: I understand that some schemes are obviously important to business and local communities, but which Government programmes and Department's budgets would the hon. Gentleman reduce to pay for the increases in the highways programme that he suggests are needed imminently?
      Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman poses a false dilemma. The Department for Transport has mismanaged its budget and—as the Secretary of State said, in effect, during Transport questions—the railway system that has been set up under his control and the schemes designed by his two immediate predecessors as Secretary of State for Transport in the Labour Government are eating public money hand over fist. My concern is that the hapless motoring public must now pay for the Government's folly.
      The Minister may think it perfectly reasonable that the motoring public should pay £42 billion a year in motoring taxes and get back precious little for it. I do not agree with him. It is incumbent on a responsible Government to invest in our highway network. I assure him that the next Conservative Government will invest seriously in the highway network in the same way as we did when we were last in government and I was privileged to be the Minister for Roads and Traffic.
      I opened more roads during the year or so that I was Minister than this Government will start work on in a two-year period. [Interruption.] The Minister refers to the scissors that I have got at home. I have a very large number of boxes of scissors, each of which represents a

      1499
      triumph for the environment and improvements for the motoring public. Most of the road openings at which I was privileged to preside were to the benefit of local people—bypasses were built for them—and certainly to that of the motoring public as well. Certainly, with great significance, they were to the benefit of road safety.
      The hon. Member for Stafford referred to the importance of road safety, which cannot be understated. The number of fatalities on our roads is currently levelling off. Indeed, in 2002, more people were killed on the roads than in 1998, whereas the number of people killed on the roads fell consistently, year after year, under the previous Conservative Government. One of the reasons for the levelling off in the number of fatalities on the roads is that the Government are no longer investing in road improvements in the way that their predecessor did. That is another reason why the Government should be pushed in the debate to admit that they have been going slow deliberately on their roads programme, while trying to delude people with their rhetoric that they are still on the side of the motorist, which manifestly, when one looks at the facts, they are not.
      3.26 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on securing not one but two debates this afternoon. She truly is an influential force in the Liaison Committee, as well as the Transport Committee, over which she presides with such aplomb. I also congratulate her on her very fine Russian accent; I was very impressed indeed. Unfortunately, Hansard will not be able to reflect her accent, so I thought that I would do so instead.
      I noted the criticisms made by my hon. Friend, and I will deal with them in my remarks. The criticisms that the Transport Committee made were very real and certainly related to things that needed firm action, although I also note that she said that, in general, the Highways Agency performs well. That was reflected in a number of hon. Members' comments. I should like to put on record the fact that the Highways Agency runs an excellent road system. Our trunk road and motorway system must rank as one of the very best in the world. It is certainly one of the best on which I have ever travelled in any country that I have visited. The way that our roads are handled, managed, repaired and maintained is quite outstanding, and we must congratulate the agency on that.
      My hon. Friend raised the important issue of finance and accounting. The criticisms made at the time were very real and proper, as there was no proper accounting system for the change to resource accounting, but lessons have been learned and acknowledged. Not only the Highways Agency but a number of Departments were on a fairly steep learning curve at that time. A new finance director has now been appointed, and that person is making considerable changes to the way in which the agency operates.
      I want to deal with one or two points made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). When I was doing a scissors motion—I have certainly opened quite
      1500
      a number of roads; the office has a large number of pairs of scissors as a result of cutting tapes—I was referring to the cuts made when he was a Minister. We would take his comments today a little more seriously if his own party was not about to embark on a mass of cuts, particularly to the transport programme.
      The hon. Gentleman said that there was an overwhelming strength of feeling that motorists are being let down. That is certainly not reflected on his Back Benches, because only two of his party have turned up for this debate. He will not have noticed, but while he was speaking, his Whip fell asleep—although he seems to have perked up now that I am on my feet.
      The hon. Member for Christchurch made a point about deaths on the roads. I would hope that the matter of safety on our roads would not become a party political football. We have a very good record of safety on the roads in thus country. Casualties have been reducing year on year for a long period. That is testament to the work of successive Governments. Some of the actions taken 30 or 40 years ago are still bearing fruit today.
      We produced some more figures on deaths on the roads yesterday, and they sadly show that the reduction has levelled off at about 3,400 or 3,500. That has happened in other European countries as well, and we are not entirely sure why it should be. However, it is interesting that the number of people seriously injured is continuing to fall, and fall rapidly. Also, the number of children who are killed or seriously injured is falling rapidly. In fact, the number of deaths on our roads is falling in all the categories except two. There is a slight increase in the number of car occupants who have been killed. That may reflect the fact that there are more vehicles on our roads, or that some people are involved in unsurvivable collisions. We must look into that carefully. At the same time, the number of serious injuries of car occupants is falling.
      The figures would have shown a further fall in deaths were it not for the increase in the number of motorcyclists who have been killed on our roads. Yesterday's figures showed yet another increase, which is a very sad fact. I hope that, when we produce the report of the working group that has been considering issues to do with motorcycling, the hon. Gentleman will support some of the measures that we want to take to decrease those disturbing figures of deaths on our roads.
      Mr. Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one third of the contribution to improving road safety should be investment in engineering measures, and that it is the Government's failure to deliver on that part of the programme that is contributing to those disappointing figures?
      Mr. Jamieson: That just is not the case. If that were true, the number of serious injuries would be levelling off or rising. It is not; it is falling rapidly, which is testament to the goad work not just of the Highways Agency, but of the police, local authorities and many others. Education programmes for drivers and for children crossing roads are also contributing to greater safety. I would hope that there would be some cross-party agreement on that. Much of the good work is being done by local authorities of all political parties. I

      1501
      have had discussions with leaders of councils and those responsible for road safety on Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Labour authorities, and they all share concern about death on the roads.
      The Transport Committee has produced a number of thought-provoking reports—on the work of the Department and not least one on the Highways Agency. This debate is a timely opportunity to explain to the House the key role of the agency in helping to bring about a better quality of transport for all. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich pointed out how important the road systems are to our economy. As our economy grows—we have a highly successful economy under this Government, and I am very proud to say that—we are seeing more traffic on the roads and hence greater pressure on our road systems.
      The agency is responsible for the motorways and trunk roads in England. Those roads are the lifeblood of the country and vital to our economic success. Although they form less than 3 per cent. of England's road network, they carry nearly one third of all traffic and two thirds of all freight. The network is essential to industry and commerce. It is also used extensively for social purposes—for pleasure and leisure. As more people in the country are working, they have more money in their pockets for such activity. A good example of that is the fact that the M4 and the M5 were successfully used by thousands of football supporters for the FA cup play-offs in Cardiff during May.
      The successful economy has seen a dramatic rise in traffic levels, which has resulted in pressure on our road systems, particularly where economic growth has been strongest. To do nothing is not an option for us. If we did nothing, we would be faced with a growth in congestion levels on our strategic roads of more than 50 per cent. by the end of the decade. Our goal is a road network that provides a safe and more reliable, freer-flowing system for motorists and business.
      We all accept that we cannot just build our way out of congestion, but providing more capacity where it is most needed has a part to play. We are therefore investing in the targeted programme of improvements, or TPI. That includes widening key strategic routes such as the M1, the M6 and the M25, as well as building much needed bypasses throughout the country. Many of those schemes have come about as a result of the recommendations of the multi-modal and road-based studies that we set up to consider the most serious problems on the network.
      The Highways Agency will be investing more than £500 million this year alone in major improvement and widening schemes. It has developed techniques to speed up the delivery, so that improvements can come on stream as soon as possible. An example of that is the early contractor involvement in the design process. That approach has the support of the construction industry, and the programme currently costs £8.8 billion and comprises 82 schemes. Of those. seven are due to open to traffic before the end of 2004–05. A further eight are under construction and will open in the next two to three years.
      Mr. Chope: Will the Minister answer the point that the present schemes will take 17 years to complete at the
      1502
      present rate of £500 million a year—totalling £8.8 billion—and that a whole lot more are waiting to be added to the TPI? That is not good enough—is it?
      Mr. Jamieson: That is absolutely correct; we have set up a programme for a long period, and also set out how the schemes will be financed. I return to the point that the hon. Gentleman is chiding us for not building, but his party has no intention of increasing the transport budget. In fact, it intends to decrease it. When asked by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) which of the budgets he would cut and where the money would be found, he had no answer. He will of course be telling me that there will be tax cuts as well as all these roads. Before we get to a general election, it would be wise for the hon. Member for Christchurch to have a policy that stacks up. It is not enough to have a load of promises; he needs the money as well. Many years ago, my party used to do the same thing. We had lots of promises but were not sure how to deliver them. We spent 18 years in opposition. He may well be on the way to doing the same thing.
      Clive Efford Clive Efford: I was just wondering whether the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was asking for targets to be set since that seems to be a subject of great debate this week.
      Mr. Jamieson: The Conservatives do not seem to have targets in mind these days. They want to get rid of them, except when it suits them. They want targets for road building but not for health care.
      We also need to consider ways of managing our roads more efficiently, to reduce congestion and provide more reliable roads. Keeping traffic moving is the key to motorists getting a better service. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) talked about the change from the Highways Agency's traditional role as a road builder and maintainer to its pivotal role as a network operator. This year the agency embarked on its new role as traffic manager and it is developing the new traffic management systems that will deliver that better service.
      The first signs of that new role that the road user will have seen are the agency's new traffic officers. They have been operating on the motorways around the Birmingham box since 26 April. They provide seven-day-a-week patrols between 6 am and 8 pm. A 24-hour service covering the entire west midlands motorway network will be in place by spring next year.
      The traffic officers' main aim is to keep the traffic moving and make journeys as reliable as possible. Initially, they are focusing on patrolling motorways and assisting road users. They deal with debris, broken-down vehicles and other problems that can hinder people's journeys. They will also support the police in road safety-related activities and incidents. An additional benefit will be that the police will have more time to focus on accident investigation and managing crime.
      As my hon. Friend said, when the Traffic Management Bill receives Royal Assent, the traffic officers will take over the full responsibility for handling traffic incidents, with the police retaining responsibility for enforcing traffic laws and investigating road

      1503
      accidents. They will want to get the traffic moving as soon as possible following incidents, and that will play a crucial role in tackling congestion.
      My hon. Friend raised an issue that has been raised a number of times by some of the breakdown operators. The AA, the RAC and Green Flag do an excellent job on our roads. There will be times when a vehicle has broken down—perhaps in the outside lane of a motorway or in another dangerous place—and the Highways Agency traffic officers will remove it to a place of safety. That makes good sense. The police do it now by bringing in a contractor. However, there is no intention that the Government, the Highways Agency or the traffic officers should set up any form of alternative breakdown system. We have no intention of doing that. We are well covered at the moment. It is not a service that we want to pay for when the private sector is doing such an excellent job.
      The agency will roll out the traffic officer service to other motorways by the end of 2005.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: On the terms and conditions of the traffic officers, will my hon. Friend assure me that they will have access to union rights and will be allowed to organise within the control centres?
      Mr. Jamieson: Yes, indeed. They will have the rights of any other workers who work for the Highways Agency or any other Department. That is right and proper. My hon. Friend may have seen some of the officers in her visits to the west midlands recently. Like me, she will no doubt be extremely impressed with the quality and dedication of the people who have been recruited to the service. I have been pleasantly surprised at the quality, the enthusiasm and the dedication of the people who have come forward for the job.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I am extraordinarily grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. There will be a question of dual status. The centres will have civil servants who work directly for the Highways Agency and private employees who work for a private contractor. I just want my hon. Friend to assure me that there will be equal union opportunities for both sets of workers. As there will also be police employees in some of the centres, will he also assure me that difficulties will not arise because of the differences between terms of employment?
      Mr. Jamieson: That will be the case. There will be no change. The Bill does not change the status of the police in any way. They obviously operate under their own laws and their ability to organise is set out in legislation. The laws that apply to the traffic officers will be the same as those that apply to any other civilian worker or civil servant. That is right and proper. I know of no reason why that should be changed.
      By the end of 2005, 1,200 officers will provide a front-line service to road users. They will be supported by seven new regional control centres, which will be jointly staffed by agency personnel and the police, who will allocate officers to incidents, co-ordinate the responses of the emergency services and other providers, manage
      1504
      and monitor traffic, and control electronic signs, which many Members will welcome, because that information is not always up to date. Someone will have the dedicated role of making sure that the signs give good-quality, accurate information that does not apply to something that happened a few hours or even a few days ago.
      The agency already operates one centre in partnership with the central motorways police group at Perry Barr in the west midlands. It controls all electronic motorway signs and signals in the area, as well as answering calls from emergency roadside telephones. That is already bringing benefits, as police control room operators are freed up to concentrate on intelligence-led policing activities, including the increased application of automatic number plate recognition technology, and the agency can monitor and control traffic officers on the network. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich that the officers on the road will be fully trained for the tasks that they perform. The Highways Agency has Investors in People status, and is committed to staff receiving appropriate training for the work that they undertake. My hon. Friend will appreciate the fact that the work force are new—I admit that we are still on a learning curve—and, although they have received initial training, they will need more as their role increases. When the Traffic Management Bill receives Royal Assent and becomes an Act we will need to look at other issues, such as traffic officers' ability to stop and guide traffic, for which they will require further training. We will have to work closely with the police, so that the expertise and skills that they have built up over the years can be passed on to traffic officers.
      There will be clear lines of command, and a distinction will be drawn between the role of the traffic officers and that of the police. Protocols are being developed to make sure that there is no duplication of activity, and that there is a clear understanding of who does what. I was asked who makes the final decision at an incident. The police will always be in charge at a serious incident that they are required to attend, and traffic officers will act in support. If a traffic officer arrives at the scene first, he will act according to clear guidelines on what he can do in the circumstances. If people are injured, his first task will be to guide or stop the traffic to ensure that more people are not injured. He will then make sure that the appropriate services are on the way, and clear the road so that the emergency services have access. He would therefore do the things that the police currently do, but once the police arrived they would take control of the incident, and he would operate in a support role.
      Very often, long delays on the motorway network and trunk roads arise after the casualties are taken away and the police have conducted an investigation into any criminal activity. Debris and vehicles have to be removed from the road, and barriers and the road surface repaired. One criticism of our work is that we take too long to do those things, so the roads are closed for far too long. Traffic officers would be able to coordinate some of that work more efficiently, and the police would be freed up to perform other essential tasks. Traffic officers could then ensure that the road is reopened as soon as possible.
      Another crucial tool for dealing with congestion on the roads is information. It is vital that the agency knows what is happening on its network and

      1505
      communicates that to road users through timely and accurate information. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich had the opportunity to see what can be achieved in that regard when she visited the national traffic control centre at Quinton on the outskirts of Birmingham. The centre is at the heart of the agency's information network. It began operations in November last year, and when it is fully operational it will collect and analyse data on traffic conditions to supply accurate real-time quality information to motorists.
      The centre already provides motorists with information on alternative routes and travel advice that can minimise the effects of congestion and incidents. It gives people more information both before they travel, which in some circumstances could influence them to leave the car at home and take public transport, and while they are on their journeys, through the variable message signs and the travel news broadcasts.
      The traffic control centre proved a major asset during the heavy snow conditions that we experienced at the end of January this year. I shall deal in a moment with events that occurred the previous year. The centre enabled the agency's senior managers and myself to be kept fully informed about the ongoing situation on the network. It also provided valuable advice to road users about the prevailing conditions.
      One of the criticisms concerned the reaction to the bad weather during winter 2002–03. It is an important part of any maintenance strategy that key routes are kept open and safe during the winter weather. That was a matter about which the Select Committee was rightly concerned and rightly critical during winter 2002–03, particularly the events of the end of January 2003.
      The Committee pointed out that there were failures in planning, co-ordination, communication and equipment. I entirely share the criticisms that the Committee made of the Highways Agency and the contractors at the time. My hon. Friend pointed out to us in her opening remarks that people were trapped ill vehicles for a very long time, and that was a matter of deep concern to me at the time. I am surprised that then were no collateral injuries to people who were exposed to the cold in their cars for such a long period.
      In future incidents, traffic officers could in some circumstances act as the motorist's friend. We had an incident on the M42 this summer in the opposite kind of weather. It was extremely hot, with temperatures around 40° C, and people were held up for a few hours in their cars. There was a danger that they would dehydrate, particularly children and elderly people. The agency did a very good job helping to provide people with refreshment and water to keep them alive, literally, while they were on the road.
      I can tell my hon. Friend that the agency has learned lessons from what occurred previously. I meet the Highways Agency on a monthly basis, at least. Every month one of the major issues on our agenda is the winter planning. The meeting that we had this week still had that on the agenda. We go through meticulously the criticisms that we received in the past and we review the ongoing planning for winter and events similar to those in the past. I can assure my hon. Friend that the agency has completely reviewed its guidance to its agents and contractors on the winter maintenance arrangements. It
      1506
      has also developed and tested contingency plans and better communication procedures. The agency held a contingency planning exercise to test its winter service, business continuity and contingency plans. I trust that the way these improved procedures kept the network safely open during January this year, when we had quite severe weather in parts of the country, will reassure the Committee and the House that the systems worked very much better this year.
      We will not, however, be complacent on this matter. We have learned further lessons even from the 2003–04 winter, and they will be built into planning for next winter. That will include closer liaison with others, including local authorities and motorway service area operators, to ensure that there are no gaps with regard to where the responsibility of one party stops and that of another starts. One thing that we found this year was that the Highways Agency had done an excellent job in gritting and clearing the trunk roads and motorways, but when people went on to the local roads, they found that the local authorities had not always been able to do the same sort of job. Of course, that created problems throughout the system. We are now working very closely with local authorities to see how we can overcome some of those problems.
      Mr. Paul Marsden: Do the contingency plans allow new contractors to be brought in at a moment's notice and in the space of a few hours if other contractors fail to do their job properly, as we saw them do in January 2003?
      Mr. Jamieson: Even during 2002–03, the vast majority of contractors operated well and efficiently. A particular fault arose with one contractor in one aspect of its work. Clearly, it was manifestly wrong, there was inefficiency, and we will ensure that the contractor does not do the same thing again.
      In the first instance, we are looking not at punitive measures, but at properly monitoring what contractors are doing and ensuring that they are doing what their contract says they should be doing, and doing it well. Previously, that was one of the weaknesses; we were not looking at the contracts sufficiently closely to ensure that they were doing the job. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) also referred to this point. We have the proper monitoring of contracts, we are looking carefully at what contractors are doing and ensuring that they are fulfilling their obligations. The new contracts that will be introduced as the current ones gradually come to the end of their lives will be much more closely focused on performance, and there will be penalty points for contractors that are not meeting parts of their obligations. In those circumstances, they will not be paid for the work that they are doing. That will be one of the penalties.
      If a contractor consistently fails in those circumstances, we can terminate its contract. I do not think that anyone would advise us to take such action because of some small deficiency while the snow is 3 ft deep on the motorway in January. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham asked whether others could be

      1507
      brought in. Of course, we have some mutual aid, so if there is a particular problem in one area, other contractors can move in and take over some of the work.
      There will also be further improvement in how the agency and service providers communicate about the winter service decisions. They are also improving communication to drivers before and during journeys. The agency is building links with the Met Office to ensure that drivers receive consistent and meaningful messages about the weather. It is also reviewing the use of electronic signs and messages, as well as issuing an improved winter driving leaflet.
      While I have concentrated on the way in which the agency is meeting the needs of the road user, I can assure the House that its activities are balanced so that the needs of communities and the environment are not ignored. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Highways Agency is the second largest planter of trees in England. At many road openings, I have seen special arrangements made to enable badgers to cross the road in tunnels. On one of the sites that I visited, I saw that about 59 water voles had been temporarily removed and sent in a charabanc off to north Devon; I think that I passed them when I was travelling down to my constituency, tootling along with their swimming costumes and with their surf boards on the roof. They will also be brought back. That shows the meticulous care that the Highways Agency takes in respect of livestock, birds and other animals, as well as trees.
      We have set the agency challenging targets to ensure that the environment is properly respected. For instance, the agency is reducing traffic noise by resurfacing concrete roads with quieter surfaces, and at least 50 lane-km of concrete roads will be treated this year, bringing a welcome reduction in noise.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford asked about noise attenuation measures. We have put aside a ring-fenced budget of £5 million per year, and we are examining sites where we can put in noise attenuation measures, such as fences, bunding or whatever is appropriate. Obviously, we are dealing first with those sites where the number of people affected and the noise are the greatest, which has provided relief to certain communities.
      On procurement, the agency delivers the majority of its services through third parties such as contractors, managing agents and consultants. Buying in such services is therefore an integral part of the agency's business, and it is at the forefront in that particular field. The agency's procurement strategy benefits the supplier industry, because it provides continuity and certainty, which was not available in the past, by allowing companies to plan effectively and, importantly, to train and retain skilled staff. The agency's procurement strategy also improves health and safety for workers and develops sustainable working practices.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich and for Eltham raised the issue of contracts. We have put more serious sanctions into the contracts to cover service failures, and, as I said earlier, it is possible to avoid contracts altogether.
      The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham mentioned Thelwall viaduct, which is an unhappy case. The current focus is on replacing the bearings, more
      1508
      than 100 of which have failed or are failing. As we replace the bearings, we are determining whether the original contractor was at fault, and we will take the necessary action if we find that to be the case. The exercise has been expensive for the Highways Agency, and money spent on such repairs is money that we cannot spend more positively in other areas.
      I have already mentioned the agency's use of early contractor involvement, which increases the scope for innovation, improves risk management and shortens construction periods. The first such contract, the A500 Stoke pathfinder scheme, is being built, and it will show the benefits of such contracts. The agency uses single point supply managing agent contractor contracts to cover winter maintenance. The maintenance contracts were developed in line with the best practice principles identified in the Egan report, and they are designed to reflect three principles: focus on service delivery, the Highways Agency's priorities and keeping the traffic moving. The maintenance contracts are securing continuous improvement in both supplier performance and service levels, and the Office of Government Commerce promotes their use.
      In conjunction with the construction industry, the agency has also developed the capability assessment toolkit, which is being used to procure major capital improvement schemes and large maintenance contracts. It is an innovative, industry-leading initiative that assesses the management approach of companies that are interested in bidding for major contracts, and it is also a key factor in drawing up tender lists, where it is used in conjunction with assessments of the technical capacity, financial standing and past performance of companies applying to bid for work. The industry has reacted positively to that process.
      I shall pick up the point, which relates to some huge issues, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford about the M6. The M6 carries a volume of traffic that was not imagined at the time of its construction, and we have been forced seriously to examine that route. The M6 toll road has borne some fruit and taken a lot of car traffic off the motorway. The M6 up to my hon. Friend's constituency has improved considerably. We acknowledge that it is an important strategic route and the Highways Agency is currently investigating options for widening it. However, we must find the right solution to the problem. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that it is a big problem, which would require considerable resources to put right.
      Mr. Kidney: I thought that I could help the Under-Secretary by explaining that the previous Conservative Government had a plan to widen the motorway, consulted on it and cancelled it at the last moment. I believed that at least the technical issues had been sorted out. What is the delay? I picked up from my hon. Friend's response the worrying implication that the Government are considering whether to go ahead with the widening. That would be a strange development. Did my hon. Friend mean that?
      Mr. Jamieson: No. We are considering a variety of solutions. I hope that they will become more apparent to my hon. Friend later this year. However, the problem is

      1509
      especially great and may require some new thinking about the way in which we deal with such problems. I hope that that does not tempt my hon. Friend too much.
      Mr. Chope: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
      Mr. Jamieson: All right. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless tell us where he will find all the money.
      Mr. Chope: Does the Under-Secretary's opaque reference to the M6 apply to all the other schemes to be considered for inclusion in the targeted programme of improvement?
      Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman knows that that programme includes many schemes and could include many others. I cannot say today which schemes will be included—that is down to the assessment that is made of them. He might be surprised to know that it also depends on the amount of money that will be committed to programmes. He appears surprised to learn that the number of roads that we build is related to the amount of money that we put into the budget. I am surprised at his surprise.
      Mr. Paul Marsden: Will the Under-Secretary therefore rule out the north-west relief road, which is proposed to surround north-west Shrewsbury? That would cost £42 million and be a complete waste of money.
      Mr. Jamieson: I shall not rule that in or out today.
      The agency has a challenging future. It has changed greatly since it was established 10 years ago. The challenge is whether it can provide safe and reliable journeys for customers. It has a customer focus, which means that it will further improve the management of the network and ease the impact of congestion on road users. There is some way to go but I am confident that the agency has been set the right objectives not only to meet the challenge but to achieve the Government's aim of a high quality, safe and reliable strategic road network.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich for giving us an opportunity to debate the Highways Agency. I am sure that we shall have other opportunities to discuss some of the issues. I assure her that the agency and the Department take seriously the points that were made in the report. We shall follow up with some vigour the issues that it properly raised.
      Debate concluded, pursuant to resolution [21 June].
      Questions deferred, pursuant to Standing Order 54(4) and (5) (Consideration of estimates) and Order [29 October 2002].

      Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles
      [Relevant documents: Third Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2003–04, on The Regulation of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicle Services in the UK, HC251–I, Fifth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2003–04, on The Office of Fair Trading 's Response to the Third Report of the Committee: The Regulation of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicle Services in the UK, HC418, and the Government's response thereto, Cm6183; The Department for Transport Annual Report 2004, Cm6207.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That, for the year ending with 31st March 2005, for expenditure by the Department for Transport—
      (1) further resources, not exceeding £5,665,964,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 466,
      (2) a further sum, not exceeding £5,144,950,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
      (3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.—[Paul Clark.]
      4.8 pm
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: With the leave of the House, we unknown, up-and-coming Members of Parliament have to take every opportunity to get heard. I therefore hope that I shall be forgiven for introducing my Committee's second report.
      My Government rely heavily on the theory that only by continually introducing competition to various services can high standards be achieved. I have reservations about that, especially in relation to state services such as the national health service. However, it is a sensible idea for transport.
      Taxis are a form of transport that is not often debated in the House of Commons, and it is not always realised that they are not only part of the general transport system but an essential part of the system for a great many people, including those who do not own a car, and those who no longer drive or no longer have access to a car. Such people are very dependent on the provision of efficient taxi services, and that part of the transport system is always growing. It is therefore essential that the way in which taxis operate, the safety levels that they provide, the prices that they charge and, above all, the services that they offer are those that are required by the general public and are of a consistently high standard.
      Because Her Majesty's Government have, in the past, been so reliant on the opinion of the Office of Fair Trading, the Select Committee on Transport was somewhat surprised to discover that the OFT had produced a report that seemed to suggest that it was no longer a good idea for local authorities to control the number of taxi licences issued in a particular area. A normal way of balancing supply and demand in such services is to ask local people what they want, and to place the responsibility for deciding the size of a particular fleet on an elected authority.
      My own council, for example, decided some time ago, under a previous Administration, that it would be challenged if it sought to restrict the issuing of licences,

      1511
      and there followed a period during which almost anybody with respectable traits—rather than people who did not comply with proper standards—was able to obtain a licence. That resulted in an extraordinary situation, in which there was not only an increase in the number of taxis but a drop in the number of private hire cars, which had previously not been allowed to ply for hire on the roads. That change was not necessarily to the advantage of the general public. I speak from personal experience as one who uses the taxi system in my constituency widely.
      In Crewe, the large taxi firms that had provided a 24-hour service, including at difficult and sometimes unpopular hours—enabling people to get to railway stations or to get home safely at times when there were not large numbers of passengers looking for taxis—suddenly found that, following the issuing of large numbers of taxi licences, the emphasis was on providing lots of taxis at the times when there were lots of people available, but not on an equal basis right across the 24-hour period. So, if someone required a taxi late on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday night from one or two of the well known centres of entertainment, there would probably be a large number of taxis available, some of which would previously have been private hire cars. However, those services were not necessarily being provided at unpopular hours.
      I therefore took a very personal interest when the Committee decided to consider the OFT's examination of the provision of taxi licences, and I have to say that the Committee found the report fairly disquieting. In the past, the OFT has been well known for the very high standard of its work, and the care with which it provided reports. Under Sir Gordon Borrie—with whom I had the privilege of working when I was an extraordinarily junior Minister of no import whatever in what was then the Board of Trade—the OFT had developed a very good reputation, not only for looking into the essential problems that were arising across the board, but for coming to measured and careful judgments based on fact.
      I am not making a general assumption that all the OFT's work is now substandard, but the sad thing is that the Committee found that this report was frankly not one of which the office could be proud. Indeed, we found that, in many respects, the report was slovenly and did not seem to have been carefully researched. The research had not been undertaken by the OFT itself, but seemed to have been based on a ragbag of other people's research. Some of the research was done for completely different reasons, and then somehow aggregated into the report, which precipitated a series of decisions that boiled down to the fact that one way in which the travelling public could be assisted to get many more private taxis was to remove many of the responsibilities from local authorities, and to say, in effect, that almost anyone could have a licence if they complied with one or two very minimal conditions.
      When we questioned the Office of Fair Trading, we were concerned about the quality of the research, as I have said, about the conclusions that it had reached, and that it had not given nearly enough weight to the views of local authorities. One of the responsibilities of
      1512
      an elected member in a particular borough, or town, wherever it is in the United Kingdom, is to know what their electors want and, certainly, to be aware of the conditions that apply in relation to the provision of transport. It seemed to us that the OFT had decided in a cavalier manner that local authorities should not have rights to place restrictions on the number of licences based on their assessment of need in a particular area but rather on a rather outdated view of the provision of competition, which had not been justified either by the OFT's report or the modelling that it had undertaken. Our inquiry session with the OFT confirmed that, and when we said one or two things that the OFT seemed to regard as at best disobliging and at worse cruel, it came out with a report saying, in effect, that we were all wrong and that we did not know anything about the subject. Well, it was precisely because we were concerned about the quality of its work that we asked it those questions, and we did not receive satisfactory answers.
      I do not conclude from that that every inquiry into competition throughout the United Kingdom will produce a report that cannot be justified on the basis of facts and figures. In this particular instance, however, I repeat that we were clear that the Office of Fair Trading, which has a special responsibility and could destabilise taxi firms throughout the United Kingdom if it took the wrong decision, had not in this instance undertaken its research to an adequate standard. In some cases, it had been involved in very odd decisions. For example, in Cambridge, a university city, it had done this piece of work during the holidays. When we asked it why it had done so, it seemed to think that that was an unnecessary question. When we pointed out that one of the big users of taxis would be student populations, we did not really get a coherent reply. Indeed, some might say that we did not get a reply at all.
      The Committee's report says plainly that for many women, elderly people and people who do not have access to cars, the taxi is not an indulgence or an expense but a fundamental way of getting to and from essential services such as doctors and shops. If there is not a proper taxi service available to everybody, across the board, at prices that they can afford, that is a definite drawback. It is not an abstract argument. This is a transport system that underpins the existing transport. In some areas, particularly where bus companies arbitrarily withdraw services on their own criteria, without, as far as one can see, considering the needs of the population, only people's ability to replace that with a taxi service, preferably at a reasonable rate, makes it possible for them still to enjoy a normal standard of life. It is therefore very important that we get this right.
      I was not impressed with the original evidence from the Office of Fair Trading, and we have said why: the work was not well done, deeply researched or properly prepared. I was mildly irritated by the OFT's peevish response when we dared to criticise it. I am afraid that the House of Commons is here in order to criticise. Although some Members of Parliament might think that it is more important to notch up the number of television programmes on which they appear, I happen to think that it is more important to be here doing

      1513
      detailed Select Committee work, looking at what we need for our constituents and defending their interests when the occasion arises.
      Even if we are few in number today, the extent to which we make up for that in quality is so notable that I am sure that the House will not be surprised to hear how important I find this debate. I am grateful to the Minister for coming along this afternoon to discuss with us whither the future of the taxi service. We have to get away from the idea that only rich people use taxis. Rich people do not need taxis; ordinary people do. Ordinary people, at all stages of their lives, require access to taxis and private hire vehicles. Those are not the same thing. They perform different functions and it is clear that the ideas that the OFT was promulgating were neither soundly based, sensible nor, ultimately, defensible. That seems to me a sad comment on the OFT, and I hope that it will never do such a sloppy piece of work again.
      4.21 pm
      Clive Efford: I should like to preface my contribution by saying that I have been involved in detailed discussions on the taxi industry as a representative of the industry before entering the House—hon. Members will know that I am a former London taxi driver—and since I have become a Member of the House, particularly on the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. I have to say that I find that the Department for Transport—although I do not mean the Ministers when I say this—is impenetrable when it comes to trying to get it to understand just exactly what the taxi industry is, what it stands for and what service it provides.
      It is worth starting by trying to determine what a taxi is. It is a highly personalised transport service, but it is also an essential part of the public transport system. From my experience, I can tell the House that many main stations in central London would suffer enormously from the congestion of people and personnel on platforms and around stations were it not for the efficient way in which taxis can move people through those stations. Hundreds of people per hour can be shifted through a station rank as a result of the efficiency of our London taxi service. The failure to understand the contributions that taxis make in all sorts of ways to life not just in London, but in communities up and down the country, is at the heart of why we continually return to false arguments about what a taxi is and what the private hire industry provides.
      It is clear what people want: an efficient service that is safe and affordable. We always return to the argument about what private hire is and what a taxi is. Page 2 of the Government response to the Select Committee report refers to an expectation, or assumption, that if we deregulate or derestrict the number of taxis in an area, there will be a flow of private hire drivers to become taxi drivers. That does happen now, as many private hire drivers are aspiring taxi drivers; but that is not an assumption that can be made. That demonstrates the false assertions and assumptions of which the Department is guilty in its response to the Office of Fair Trading. The Government have shown considerable sympathy for
      1514
      the position advanced by the OFT, though their final conclusion was to give local authorities the opportunity to determine numbers at the local level.
      The private hire vehicle and the taxi provide the exact same service. Whether the vehicle is hired on the street and stops on the street, whether it is summoned through the telephone or pre-booked, the service provided is a door-to-door service that is exactly the same. It is important to recognise that if we are to discuss the taxi industry properly.
      My view—it is a personal view and I would not suggest that others would necessarily support it—is that we should set a target date. I apologise to Conservative Members for referring to targets there. We should set a target date some time in the distant future when there will be a single system of taxi service throughout the country. We should set the standards for the vehicles, the drivers and the knowledge expected, establishing a framework to which all future drivers, proprietors and local authorities would have to adhere. Within that, there would be local frameworks of operation.
      What would be the result? At the moment, several metropolitan districts require vehicles to have metropolitan standards of fitness—turning circles, size of vehicles, applicable tariffs and so on. If we were to require a greater degree of compliance with the metropolitan standards—they may need to be reviewed, but not dramatically changed—we would be opening up a much wider market for purpose-built vehicles. In the long-term future, that would enable us to provide wider variety and wider choice, allow us to meet a wider variety of disabilities through vehicle design—as suggested by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee in its evidence to the Select Committee—and reduce the cost of vehicles.
      There is no doubt in my mind that the monopoly of London Taxis International—Metrocab until it went out of business—over the purpose-built vehicle industry enabled the company to name its price. Until we expand the demand for purpose-built taxi vehicles and open up the marketplace to a much wider area of demand, we will not have the necessary competition over designs that would force prices down. The inflation in the cost of the taxi to the driver has far exceeded any other costs facing the industry. We should deal with that problem.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: If the hon. Gentleman is correct about London taxi builders, why has the matter not been referred to the Competition Commission?
      Clive Efford: I cannot answer that, because I do not know what rules the Competition Commission would apply, but there is no competition. That is the point. There is only one company. It cannot be accused of restrictive practices, as it is not preventing others from entering the marketplace. The problem is that it is such a closed niche market that very few people have moved into it. The Nissan engine that was placed in the Fairway taxi about 12 years ago was the first purpose-built engine for taxi vehicles. Before that, there were ex-army engines that blew up when the engine blocks

      1515
      broke on them; earlier still, there was the transit engine. Throughout the history of the taxi, the design evolved, but no one bothered to construct a purpose-built engine for the job until Nissan designed one. That demonstrates that we need to generate wider demand for such vehicles to bring about greater competition, more efficiency in the vehicles and lower prices to the driver, which will lead in turn to fewer increases in the tariff to the travelling public.
      I have said already that the Government have displayed considerable sympathy to the OFT's demand for derestriction in various areas. The Government have said that they are sympathetic to that, but it would be wrong to override local knowledge. Local authorities know what problems derestriction might cause at local level, but those are problems that the Government cannot foresee.
      For instance, taxi enforcement officers made it clear in their evidence that derestriction in taxi numbers would cause massive congestion in the centres of some towns and cities because of the shortage of taxi ranks. I know from experience that taxi drivers, when business is slow, tend to stay at the ranks. Drivers can cause congestion by blocking access to stations and other areas, but sometimes they have to wait a long time before they find another job. Driving around merely burns up fuel and increases overhead costs, so it is inevitable that, in periods of low demand, taxi drivers will park their vehicles and wait. If there are too few ranks, there will be congestion in city centres. People with long experience of the industry and of taxi enforcement know that, but the OFT report ignored it completely.
      It is clear that the OFT knew what sort of report it wanted to produce. It had predetermined that it wanted to promote a laissez-faire approach to the industry—a completely free market, open to anyone who met the required conditions. The OFT's evidence made it clear that it was ignorant of the trade, and that very little effort had been made to understand it.
      I shall give an example of that. It is true that, because the tariff is a maximum, people can negotiate it downwards. I congratulate the OFT on getting one thing right, but the report suggests that people could agree a price in negotiations at the taxi window with the driver.
      I can imagine what the result of that would be at some of the taxi ranks that I know, as late-night revellers—perhaps triumphant England football supporters celebrating victory in Portugal—negotiate with drivers the price that they are prepared to pay. The OFT suggested that a marshal would be needed to overcome any problems that might arise. The marshal would be expected to tell tired and emotional revellers what they would have to pay for their journey, or that they should join the queue for another vehicle.
      We have all seen the Robocop films, but a taxi marshal would need to be as heavily armoured and to carry as many weapons as that character. That may sound cynical, but the suggestion shows the extent of the OFT's understanding of the industry. The OFT's approach was predetermined, and it tried to make its facts and figures fit accordingly.
      1516
      In areas with restrictions on the number of taxis, services must undergo unmet demand surveys every couple of years or so. Those surveys determine whether there is unmet demand, and whether the number of taxis should be increased. The OFT criticised the surveys for being inefficient. They are mostly carried out by a company called Halcrow—yet the OFT commissioned the same company to carry out its own survey.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) noted, the OFT visited Cambridge, but not at a time when the students were around. I know Cambridge reasonably well; I have visited it on many occasions. Even I can see that it would be beneficial to carry out a survey when the students are at college, not away from the city, to get a true picture of the demand there.
      There is a catalogue of other criticisms. Initially the OFT set out to survey only the taxi industry. It took no heed of the existence of the private hire industry and its impact on the outcome of the surveys and the decisions that it might need to make about the industry. I questioned it about telephone hirings, which is a rapidly growing area of the taxi industry, but it took no account of the fact that that was a major part of both private hire and taxis.
      The reason why hon. Members wait longer outside the House for a taxi to answer the light is that many taxis are pre-booked. People standing in the street may complain about empty taxis with the light out and no one in the back, but that is because it is increasingly a pre-booked service. That highlights the fact that the taxi and private hire industries are very similar and it is why the Mayor of London consulted and increased the excess after 10 o'clock at night. He wished to encourage more drivers to ply for hire on the street rather than be pre-booked through the radio circuits. I have made this argument over many years. The way to overcome the increasing trend towards pre-booking is to increase the fare when the driver first puts the meter on when people get in the cab. The radio services in the taxi industry have tried to keep the figure down because they want drivers to sign up for the radio service and not to ply for hire on the streets. That is where the problem comes from.
      The backdrop to the debate is not only the OFT report but the other issue of major concern to the public, namely, safety. For many years I have argued with people about the way in which incidents are reported when someone is attacked in the back of a taxi. Too often, it has been reported that a taxi driver has attacked a member of the public, but when one looks at the detail, often it is an illegal hiring. It is invariably a tout who has picked someone up from the street and then attacked them in the back of the vehicle. We have failed the public by not reporting incidents properly.
      When we debated the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill more than six years ago—something that has still not been implemented in London in full—the Government had plans to provide 20 enforcement officers across London. I pointed out that that would lead to a false sense of security among the public about how well regulated the private hire vehicle industry would be under the new legislation. Unless we have enforcement of a kind that can guarantee that a vehicle

      1517
      is licensed, we will create such a false sense of security. We must take such issues into account when we consider derestricting numbers. If any hon. Member steps outside the House now they will be able to spot every licensed taxi that drives past, but they will not be able to spot every minicab that drives past. My point is that enforcement is much easier with purpose-built vehicles than ordinary saloon cars used as taxis and private hire vehicles. That goes back to my argument for moving to a one-tier system in the distant but not too distant future.
      In conclusion, I wish to highlight one of the points that emerged in evidence to the Committee and that was acknowledged by the OFT. Over the past 25 years, the taxi industry has been the fastest growing form of public transport. It has grown by more than 40 per cent. since 1995. The OFT cannot conclude that that has been the result of the derestriction of the number of taxis in certain areas—although it tried to suggest that in response to the Committee's report. If that had been the case, it would have emerged from the OFT's surveys of the industry. That is a damning indictment of the OFT's report and its conclusions.
      Not everything is perfect in the taxi industry. We could improve it in certain areas and we should endeavour to do so. However, blanket deregulation and riding roughshod over local knowledge—as the OFT has suggested—are not the answer. If it isn't broke, let's not try to fix it.
      4.41 pm
      Linda Gilroy: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the other members of the Transport Committee for the work that they have done in closely scrutinising the OFT's report. I share many of the concerns that the Committee expressed about the quality of that report and the conclusions it reached.
      Taxis and public hire vehicles play an important part in the lives of most of our constituents, especially in a city such as Plymouth, which has more than its fair share of low-income, non-car-owning households, with many vulnerable and disabled people who depend on such transport. We also have a lively night-time economy, in which taxis and private hire vehicles play an important part in getting people to and from the clubs and pubs. We also have a big student population and I recognise the comments made about Cambridge. At times when most students have gone home, demand for such vehicles is lower, but at other times there are not enough to go round. It is important to consider provision at the appropriate time in the season.
      Cost is important, but so are the issues of safety and reliability. At least the Government have not opted for big bang deregulation in response to the OFT report. It will be up to local authorities to make sense of the local situation, in the context of their local transport plans. In Plymouth, the situation has always presented a challenge to council officers and councillors, and I wonder how they will respond to some of the challenges that the issues will produce locally in future.
      I have two particular concerns, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond to them when he winds up. Plymouth has its own legislation on private hire trade issues—the Plymouth City Council
      1518
      Act 1975. The city council is unique in having the power to grant licences for the purpose of private hire, which, technically, gives it the right to limit private hire vehicle numbers. In practice, it chooses not to do so. However, local people are well aware that the council has that capacity and some in the private hire vehicle operator community have sometimes called for it to exercise that power.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, I make wide use of taxis and private hire vehicles in my constituency. Over the years, a number of concerns have been raised with me that should leave us with no illusion that the relatively free market in the private hire vehicle sector compared to the taxi sector is by any means perfect. One of my constituents wrote to me about her current experiences of that trade. Her letter gave me cause for concern that a similar situation could arise for taxis if numbers are derestricted.
      My constituent wrote:
      "For the last two years I have been a private hire driver in Plymouth. For the first few months, it was great".
      Then things became difficult for various reasons. She continued:
      "Things started to pick up gradually and then started to go downhill again. I have realised now just what it is. There are too many private hire drivers and more pouring in each month."
      When she phoned Plymouth city council, she was "absolutely amazed" to discover that there was no regulation to stop the issue of private hire licences, which was, she said:
      "Something to do with freedom and democracy. Well, I'm all for that but not if it affects my weekly income."
      She asked why people are allowed to go through the taxi schools run by some of the fleet operators in Plymouth when there is no work for them and existing drivers struggle to meet their bills. She described the difficulties in meeting those bills:
      "If we were seeing small losses that would be acceptable, but in two years I have lost between £250-£300 per week and I put it down largely to the saturation of the market."
      It is something to do with the market, but it is also to do with the way that some fleet operators suck some of the people they put through their driving schools into leasing vehicles with high maintenance costs. I am worried that we could have the same unrestricted market if we derestrict the numbers for hackney cabs.
      Will the Minister look into that situation? If he goes ahead with the proposals in his action plan, will he ensure that the OFT and the Department of Trade and Industry give as much attention to the unfair competition aspects in the operation of the private hire market as they give to deregulation? Will he consider whether his Department could alert local authorities to look into such issues? He may tell me that they already have such a role, although I am not aware of it. However, if there is to be a greater move towards deregulated markets, perhaps he could provide guidance for local authorities on how to deal with such issues in the framework of competition legislation.
      Secondly, will the Minister look into the position of the very worried black-cab drivers who have invested a considerable amount in their taxi business? They are concerned about the impact of the changes on the value of their plates and the existing trade in plates. Unless local authorities are allowed to manage change sensibly,

      1519
      people who count on that as part of their retirement fund could face a sudden loss that might hit them very hard indeed.
      I should like the Minister to say to what extent local authorities will be able to take account of such positions, given that, under the Government's proposals, they will have not only to review regularly but justify their decisions to continue to restrict licences. An article published in the Financial Times earlier this year shows just how unfair that would be. It was written by John Kay, who says:
      "When licences are restricted. they acquire a value".
      That value can vary. He says that
      "in Crawley or Wycombe you may have to invest up to £50,000."
      I suspect that the figure is probably a little less in Plymouth. He continues:
      "The potential profit a taxi driver might derive from restrictive licensing through higher fares and fuller cabs is absorbed in the costs of servicing the loan needed to acquire the licence. Today's taxi drivers are no better off than if the restrictions on numbers of cabs had never been introduced … who does benefit from quantity licensing? The gains go to the people who were in business when the restrictions were introduced".
      So a problem could arise if local authorities had difficulties in justifying deregulation.
      We are all vulnerable with regard to our safety and, often, to our ability as consumers to know whether we are being taken all round the houses to get where we want to go. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) referred to the difficulties that people face in trying to bargain over price; but, equally, if people turn up in a city or community with which they are not familiar, they do not know whether they are literally being taken all round the houses to get to their destinations. So there is scope for abuse.
      I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the points that I have raised in ensuring that taxis and private hire vehicles can continue to serve our constituents' interests. On balance, at best, the benefits of implementing the sort of deregulation that the OFT envisages might be described as a cake that is not worth the candle and, at worst, such deregulation could open up a very nasty new can of worms.
      4.52 pm
      Mr. David Lepper: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is the Chairman of the Transport Committee, and the members of her Committee on their work—I was going to say, "for the demolition job that they have done", but it is, in fact, not a demolition job but a systematic, step-by-step taking apart of a wholly unsatisfactory piece of research by the OFT. We are all indebted to my hon. Friend and her Committee for the way in which they have approached the OFT report.
      I will declare an interest. I am one of the few people in the country who not only does not drive, but has never learned to drive. I imagine that that can be said of few hon. Members. So to do my job—and, indeed, to do the job that I did before I was elected to the House—I have had to rely on public transport. I welcome the fact that the Government say in their response to the report that
      1520
      they consider taxis and private hire vehicles to be an integral part of local transport provision and that proper account should be taken of them in the local transport planning process. Like many other people, I regard taxis and private hire vehicles as important parts of public transport.
      I echo the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) made about the investment that so many taxi drivers have made in setting up in the trade that they are engaged in. Given that investment, they must pay huge attention to the quality of the vehicle and its maintenance. The job that they do can be risky. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) mentioned the ridiculous proposals about haggling over prices that were recommended as part of the OFT report. I would recommend that members of the Office of Fair Trading group that carried cut the report come to West street in my constituency on a Saturday night and try to haggle at the taxi rank. I wonder how long they would last and whether they would be successful in getting a cab or would be set upon by others in the queue.
      For taxi drivers themselves the job can often be risky. They do not know who they will be picking up late at night in our big cities—whether at a rank, when they are hailed or when they are sent in a private hire vehicle in response to a telephone call. All of us may well have heard from taxi drivers who, having taken a fare to a destination, are told by the passenger, "Sorry, mate. I haven't got any money with me." They can then get into difficulties trying to get the fare that they are rightly owed.
      The OFT report shows no understanding of what the taxi trade is about and totally disregards the work that is going on locally in so many places to ensure that the quality of service offered by the taxi fleet is high. Let me put the report into the context of what has happened in my local authority area. Over the past three or four years, the taxi trade in Brighton and Hove has been through two upheavals. Two licensing authorities—Brighton and Hove—were eventually brought together uneasily when we became a unitary authority. Some leeway in the time scale was given for that process, but it caused concern and disruption to the livelihood of some taxi drivers.
      Just a year or so ago, the licensing authority commissioned Halcrow to carry out research into significant unmet demand in the Brighton and Hove area. As we have heard, Halcrow not only carried out some work for the OFT but usually conducts research for local licensing authorities. There was haggling locally between the trade and council officers, but a plan was agreed as a result of the Halcrow report for the managed growth of the trade over the following few years. That agreement was not necessarily reached easily, but everyone Knew where they were.
      Then, in a matter of months, the OFT's report came along, disregarding completely the detailed local negotiations that went on all over the country of the kind that I saw from a slight distance in my constituency. The report caused a shock wave sufficient to bring out 270 drivers in the Brighton and Hove area in a convoy in protest through the city. I am not sure whether that was the best way for them to make their

      1521
      point, but that was what they decided to do. Some 30 or 40 came up here to discuss the report and my views on it with them.
      Managed growth is the key to a successful taxi fleet as part of the public transport network in any area. The people best suited to make decisions about the form that that managed growth should take are those on the local council and the local licensing authority, in consultation with local representatives of the taxi trade. In that way, we can end up with a system that is more likely to best suit the needs of the area. The underlying mistakes of the OFT's report—there were lots of mistakes—were to assume that one system was right for everywhere in the country, and to overlook totally the likely negative results of the delimitation of numbers.
      I welcome the response to the OFT report. I also welcome the Department for Transport's decision that the delimitation recommendation at least should not proceed and its adoption of a more cautious approach than the OFT would have liked to many other recommendations. The taxi trade—I include in that the private hire trade—wants some certainty about the future. It does not want to think that every two or three years there will be another revision of how it does things. I think that local authorities want that certainty as well so that they can truly make their taxi fleets and private hire vehicles part of their local public transport network.
      This is the second time in a couple of years that the OFT has considered an activity that is a business and a service. I also have in mind its report on community pharmacies. There are serious questions to be asked about the way in which it considers service industries of any kind. It shows glaring ignorance in both reports of the impact, or the likely impact, of its recommendations on the lives of the communities that we are here to represent. Although I welcome the response and, more cautiously, the approach adopted by the Department, there are wider issues on the remit of the OFT that might also need consideration.
      5.2 pm
      Mr. Paul Marsden: I congratulate the Transport Committee, and not just because I am a member of it, on this very useful report. It demonstrates yet again the power of Select Committees. I also congratulate all hon. Members on their fine speeches: the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) showed robust leadership, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) demonstrated his expert knowledge, and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) showed her in-depth knowledge of constituents' concerns.
      The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) raised a number of issues not least that taxis and private hire vehicles offer a public transport service. That should never be forgotten. He also said that it can be overlooked that they provide safety for passengers. Those drivers are often put at risk, especially late at night. Having spoken to taxi drivers and private vehicle operators in Shrewsbury, I know that those isolated attacks can be frightening and have devastating long-term effects on the health and welfare of drivers, who provide such an important service.
      Taxi drivers and private vehicle operators offer a vital service to local communities, especially those in rural areas. Where there are few bus, train or tram service
      1522
      sand so on, or if those services are non-existent, taxis are the only recourse for people who cannot afford a car or who want the convenience of someone else driving them. Every time a bus service is altered in my constituency, it is often the elderly and disabled who have to turn more and more to taxi services to get them from A to B. I know of one case in which a route change to a bus meant the elderly taking taxis to the local hospital far more often. That is why it is important that the services are affordable.
      Taxis do their bit for the environment. They reduce the need for car parking spaces and reduce congestion. As has been mentioned, they have been the fastest growing part of the transport sector for the past 25 years, with the greatest usage coming from those on low incomes, and disabled groups.
      The problem with the OFT's report, which has been dissected by the Chairman of the Transport Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, stems from a patent lack of understanding of how the industry works, and the fact that it is important that local decisions are taken by local people.
      The OFT's report, which was published in November 2003, set out three recommendations, of which only the first was seriously put forward as a solution. The three were
      "quantity regulation … quality and safety regulation … fare regulation".
      It is key that it is the Office of Fair Trading, not merely free trading. It should be about making sure that it is a free and fair marketplace, not unfettered free trade. We do not want to see a derestriction of numbers, which will result in a lowering of regulations and a lowering of standards.
      The Select Committee showed in its report a number of key faults of the OFT. It stated that it did not understand why the OFT did not ensure that its surveys matched its wider dataset, and particularly why it did not ensure that all the evidence relating to derestricted authorities was usable. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why repeatedly the OFT did not seem to have robust and accurate data available. Likewise, when the OFT made the claim that the relevant basis upon which the decision to derestrict should be made was whether restricting taxi numbers benefited consumers today, its analysis robustly demonstrated that it did not, yet the Committee had to point out that that was based on flimsy evidence to do with waiting times.
      The Committee also talks about the confusion of the quality of data. I hope that the Minister will be able to show the House that the OFT has learned from its mistakes. Page 2 of the Government's response states that they had concerns about the evidence. The Government, contrary to what the OFT were saying, stated that ultimately,
      "local authorities are best placed"
      to determine local transport needs. Why did the OFT seemingly make such a poor case, by basing it on poor data, in its report?
      The Government also responded to the issue of best practice licensing guidance. They said in their response that advice on quality standards for vehicles to be licensed, covering the needs of disabled people, would be published. When will that advice be forthcoming?

      1523
      Likewise, it is said that the situation will be reviewed in three years' time. It would be useful for the House to know whether that will be at the beginning or the end of 2007. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, stability is so important. Those in the industry deserve to know what will happen in future as soon as possible.
      Taxis are not as polluting in some regards as other vehicles, but in other regards they most certainly contribute significantly to overall air pollution. To set this in context, I know that in Bejing city centre, 70 per cent. of taxis fail to meet even basic emission standards. That goes to show that we are making great strides in the EU and in Britain in improving air quality and reducing air pollution. However, as The Scotsman showed on 21 January, in a report to Aberdeen city council environment committee, the council's head of road management stated:
      "There is a statutory requirement to tackle poor air quality because of the risk to human health."
      The AA's view is that there is a real problem in Aberdeen city centre that is caused by old buses, old lorries and old taxis, and all diesel-engined vehicles in particular. The Commission for Integrated Transport has said that the retro-fitting of catalytic converters could be one of most effective ways of reducing emissions, although it would cost up to £500 per vehicle. Would the Government consider introducing an incentive for the retro-fitting of such converters to older taxis?
      Elsewhere, there are robust attempts to tackle the problem of air pollution. In California, for instance, all cars, including taxis, in downtown Los Angeles are to be powered by alternative fuels, which would be a considerable advance on current EU standards. Diesel-powered taxis compare favourably with conventional taxis, as they emit only a third of the carbon monoxide and two-thirds of the hydrocarbons emitted by taxis with petrol engines. However, they emit twice as many nitrogen oxides and 10 times as many particulates, which affect people with asthma and breathing difficulties. Seventy-eight per cent. of particulate pollution in London is caused by road transport vehicles, of which taxis are a significant proportion. I welcome the fact that the Government have agreed to introduce new EU standards in January 2006 that will encompass taxis and halve the particulate emission rate. However, I urge them to look at older vehicles, because we want a thriving and robust taxi service that is nevertheless less polluting.
      I will conclude with the concerns of the LTI and the industry. As has been said, the LTI has a virtual monopoly on the manufacture of vehicles, but it has said:
      "Taxi vehicle manufacturers need to play their part in improving air quality and preventing damaging climate change."
      It wants to increase the efficiency of diesel and petrol engines and decrease the pollution that they cause, and it urges manufacturers to consider the use of alternative fuels. However, it wants more encouragement and support from the Government to meet the ideal of zero emissions. I pay tribute to taxi drivers, particularly in London, who have the knowledge. The LTI asks for a review of
      1524
      "antiquated administration and testing techniques"
      and says that the Public Carriage Office should
      "remove unnecessary delays from the Knowledge test process whilst not diluting the standard."
      It is concerned about proposals for the rear loading of wheelchair users that threaten the security and safety of disabled people. I hope that the Minister can address those concerns and ensure that, above all, the OFT is rebuked for a clearly substandard report.
      5.13 pm
      Mr. Christopher Chope: I, too, congratulate the Transport Committee on its report, which has inspired a well-informed debate and influenced the decisions that the Government made in March. It is right that local licensing authorities should decide certain issues, as that is a true example of localism, which is supported throughout the country by Conservative authorities. We are delighted that there is to be a Conservative chairman of the Local Government Association as a result of our continuing success in local government elections.
      Everybody loves a cabbie. Members of Parliament particularly love cabbies because they are a useful barometer of the political climate and are well informed about what members of the travelling public think. Now is an especially good time for Conservatives to travel in the back of cabs, as we are getting encouraging messages from cabbies.
      It is interesting that, as has been pointed out in the debate, since 1995 taxis have been the fastest-growing form of public transport. It is significant that they are not subsidised. They are flexible and responsive. One can get a cab on Christmas day or in the early hours of the morning. One can get a cab more or less on demand, and it is not surprising that despite not receiving a subsidy, they meet the needs of the public. On the whole, the cabbie is an entrepreneurial, hard-working person. That is exactly what is needed in a dynamic industry that is consumer-facing, as the taxi trade is.
      It has become apparent from the debate that for a taxi driver who has invested in purchasing a plate or the right to ply for hire in a particular locality, it must be worrying to think at out the future. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), the only people who benefited from the introduction of restrictions on the number of cabs in particular localities were the people who were there at the outset, who were immediately able to sell their restricted right to ply for hire at a premium. Now that people have bought in under that system at premium rates, it is difficult see how the local licensing authorities can be fair in relaxing those restrictions while at the same time preserving the investment of those who purchased the plates
      Despite the flexibility and the growth in the taxi service, there are times in parts of the country when there still is not an adequate taxi service. That is the case in London in the early hours of the morning. If there were an adequate taxi service at that time, there would not be a proliferation of unlicensed minicabs. It is a difficult matter to enforce. I wonder whether thought has been given to the possibility of licensing a particular type of cab so that it can ply at particular times of day. At present, understandably, relatively few cabbies want

      1525
      to be out at 2 am, when they can earn no more than if they were out at 10 pm. There is a problem of demand exceeding supply.
      Clive Efford: There are many types of taxi driver and they fill different niches in the industry. Many choose to work nights because they prefer the free roads and the speed with which they can get work done. They earn very good money indeed working at night, so it is an attractive type of work in the industry. It is not necessarily the case that there are fewer cabs on the road at night because of the lack of trade
      Mr. Chope: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's great knowledge of the subject. I, no doubt like him, have often left functions in London late at night or in the early hours of the morning and looked in vain for one of those cabs to which he refers, yet have found myself being offered the services of unlicensed minicab drivers, who draw up alongside, see someone in a suit and think, "There's the opportunity for a rip-off exercise." In my experience, there is a mismatch between supply and demand, particularly in the early hours of the morning.
      It is clear that in certain parts of the country, the cost of taxis is a significant burden for people for whom no public transport is available. In many areas, there is no true bus or rail alternative, and taxis are effectively the only form of public transport. They can be a pretty expensive option, so affordability is an issue.
      I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that have been made, which come from a knowledgeable group of participants. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) referred to many of the points that LTI Ltd. made in its briefing. I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I should like to add another—the metropolitan conditions of fitness review. LTI Ltd. is concerned that the metropolitan conditions of fitness should not be altered so as to remove the very tight turning circle that London cabs enjoy. I am a proud Volvo driver. The Volvo has a pretty good turning circle, but even its turning circle is not as good as that of a London cab. LTI makes a very good case on the grounds of reducing congestion and allowing flexibility, particularly in London circumstances, for maintaining the standard conditions of fitness.
      Although the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) argued the case for national standards, there are different circumstances in different parts of the country. In some areas, there are many part-time taxi drivers. Such drivers may run garages during the day, for example, and offer a taxi service on an occasional basis. In London, taxi driving is very much a professional's activity.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Surely, the reality is that we should have a set of standards enabling somebody who has a mobility difficulty, a pram or a lot of difficult parcels to use a taxi. All those needs are much better catered for by a proper, agreed design and by vehicles that have large doors and proper access, which mean that people can use any available vehicle. We should not be saying that
      1526
      people throughout the country can accept different standards, as they face the same sort of problems wherever they are.
      Mr. Chope: The hon. Lady is right that the problems of a disabled person who wishes to go to a particular destination are the same anywhere in the country, but we would not want to introduce a system that restricted entry into the cab trade by imposing a very high barrier in terms of providing an expensive vehicle. Sometimes, such a vehicle will be used relatively infrequently, perhaps because of the remoteness of the location where it is kept and used. Would we really want to penalise villagers in remote locations where nobody can afford the capital investment that is required to purchase a cab of a standard similar to those in London? London cabs can be used by a series of drivers almost 24 hours a day.
      I submit that we need to maintain some flexibility and common sense in these matters, so that the consumer is advantaged and will not be precluded from having the important mobility that we all cherish, yearn for and wish to extend to as many people as possible.
      5.23 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), as others have done, on choosing taxis as the subject of the second part of today's debate. They are a very important transport mode in the wider context of integrated transport strategies, and they are all too infrequently debated in this place.
      The Government are dedicated to delivering better transport, and taxis and private hire vehicles, which are sometimes called minicabs, have an important part to play. I demur from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) about the Department for Transport somehow being a black hole or a dead zone in terms of taxis and PHVs. If my hon. Friend and others read the body of the Government response to the OFT report, they will find that it is more at one with the Transport Committee than it is with parts of the OFT report, so I did not understand the point about the impenetrability of the DFT on taxis. We broadly agree with the Transport Committee that the relationship between PHVs and taxis is a lacuna in the report, and I shall return to that matter in a moment.
      I shall start at the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich by acknowledging the invaluable service that the taxi and private hire industries provide to the people of this country. I shall tell a short anecdote, which may add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham. I met representatives from the taxi trade shortly after I joined the DFT. Hon. Members who are familiar with the fifth floor of Great Minster house will know that it is replete with pictures of various transport modes such as planes and buses in all their respective glory. After one meeting, colleagues from the taxi trade went up and down the corridor looking in vain for a picture of a black taxi. However, if one goes up to the fifth floor now, a photograph of a black cab in all its splendour is on the wall straight outside my office, although perhaps that is part of the problem raised by my hon. Friend.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich made the important point that taxis and PHVs are not only for the rich—far from it, because the rich can afford

      1527
      alternatives. In the more deprived parts of our towns and cities, taxis or PHVs may be the only form of transport that people can rely on. Furthermore, taxis or PHVs provide safety, security and reliability. Even in areas where the transport network is well developed, PHVs and taxis complete the tail end of journeys from the railway station to locations such as the home or hospital.
      The use of taxis or PHVs is not linked to affluence. As a matter of record and research, people in the lowest income groups make the most taxi trips, so taxis and PHVs are vital in tackling social exclusion to enable the most marginalised members of society to access services and a quality of life that many of us take for granted.
      In that context, it is not surprising that, as many hon. Members said, the taxi and PHV industries have experienced some of the greatest growth rates for any transport mode over the past 20 years, and that is true not only in cities, but in rural communities as well. Taxis and PHVs provide opportunities for entrepreneurs to innovate, which is why we relaunched our guidance "Flexible Transport Services" in 2002. The guidance explains the various options that the law allows and provides many examples involving buses, taxis and car-sharing schemes. We want people to utilise taxis and PHVs to fill the gaps. Even if nothing else emerges, it would be a broad advance if hon. Members were to leave this debate with the notion that taxis and PHVs are key to an integrated transport system, and that the DFT treats them as such.
      It is most important that transport authorities outside London consider taxis and PHVs as fundamentals in any local transport plan. To aid that—I freely admit that the first round of transport plans contained a gap on taxis and PHVs—we shall produce model local taxi-PHV policies for the next round of local transport plans in the taxi-PHV best practice licensing guidance, which I shall return to later and which was part of the response to the OFT.
      Aside from which party is in power, for the first time we shall reach a stage where local transport plans, which are the key resource allocation packages, routinely include a strategy that places PHVs and taxis at the heart of every community outside London's local transport planning strategy.
      Let us consider the Office of Fair Trading's market study into taxi and PHV services. It is not for the Government to comment on the OFT's choice of subject for the study—that is a matter for the OFT. Beyond our response to the report, it is not necessarily my place or that of the Government to go into the same amount of detail, robust or otherwise. It is up to us to respond to the substance of the report and consider its recommendations carefully. To that end, it is appropriate to commend my hon. Friend and the Committee for producing two reports that helped greatly in our consideration of the OFT taxi and PHV study.
      One or two hon. Members have alluded to the influential nature of the reports, of which we took full cognisance. As hon. Members know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responded to the OFT on
      1528
      behalf of the Government on 18 March by means of a written statement. We responded to the two Transport Committee reports last month.
      Our response to the OFT included an action plan for taxis and PHVs that we are now taking forward. Although we accepted many of the OFT's recommendations, we concur with the Committee that local authorities an best placed to make local decisions in the light of local needs and circumstances. Many colleagues made that point in a far more erudite fashion than me.
      I was struck by the experience of hiccup and disruption outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), first through the merger of Brighton and Hove into one unitary authority. The new joint unitary authority conducted a survey of unmet demand, but there is a fear that the Government's response will cause great disruption for the third time. We shall send a letter to all local authorities and, without wishing to pre-empt Brighton and Hove, I should think that, given the detailed work that was conducted last year on a managed growth strategy and the amount of local detail in it, the Government would not seek to change the position that prevailed under it after the survey of unmet demand. Brighton and Hove's strategy appears exemplary and something that we would request of all local authorities that would like to retain quantity controls.
      We start from the premise that quantity controls are appropriate given local circumstances and that any change to the position should be in local hands and determined by local people. It is entirely justifiable to say to local authorities, "You know the local market far better than we do and the unmet demand that exists in your area. Please tell us in simple language, because we are simple folk at the Department for Transport, why you think restrictions should remain." In most circumstances, that should be a straightforward exercise for most local authorities.
      We therefore concluded that it was not the role of central Government to take away local discretion on the number of taxi licences granted by local licensing authorities, as the OFT recommended. For the reasons that I have outlined and that have, I believe, all-party support—local knowledge and autonomy for local government—it is appropriate for local discretion to remain. However, it is right and proper that local authorities first justify maintaining the restrictions. I stress that approximately half of all local authorities have such controls. I make it clear that the power to restrict taxi licence numbers in England and Wales outside London will stay with local government. I emphasise a point that perhaps the OFT overlooked. There are already two or three discernibly different sorts of market for taxis and PHVs.
      As I have said, about half the authorities have no restrictions, including London—although London has a different regulatory framework. Some authorities—although not a whole lot—have reviews on a regular basis. Others decide, after exhaustive annual research, that they should allow 10, 20 or 30 more licences a year—this might be a bit of a caricature—thus allowing the same level of increase on a yearly basis as a sort of escape valve for the unmet demand. Other authorities go further and have restrictions in place which they review perhaps less than once a year.

      1529
      So we already have a disaggregated market, rather than the pure market that, if I were being less than kind, I might say that the OFT report seemed to suggest that we had. We are very comfortable with the notion that things should stay local. We have already written to all authorities that have restrictions in place, not to ask them to justify their position—"justify" is the wrong word—but simply to substantiate why carrying on having restrictions is appropriate. If they are anything like Brighton and Hove, they will be able to answer that question in very short order.
      Clive Efford: I understand why my hon. Friend has written to those authorities that have restrictions on numbers to ask them why that might be the case, and to assess whether it is necessary to continue to operate restrictions, but has the Department also written to those authorities without restrictions to ask whether they felt any need to cap the numbers because problems were being caused in their local area?
      Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point. In the first instance, the answer is no. We have written to those authorities that have restrictions in the context of our response to the OFT report. They will need to reflect on whether they should have restrictions in the context of their local transport plan, and of how the PHV and taxi plan fits into it. It is not for us in the first instance to ask those authorities without restrictions why they do not have them, because that is beyond the purview of our response to the OFT report.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: That is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take, as long as the Department is aware that some authorities that had initially deregulated found that the ensuing chaos did not provide a better service—in fact, it resulted in a much worse one—and sought a form of re-regulation. I know that my hon. Friend is as concerned about this issue as I am, and I would ask him to ensure that, when the Department decides which attitude it is going to take, it bears in mind the fact that it is not always simply a question of removing restrictions and saying, "Fine, this is the market and it works better." Sometimes, it works much, much worse.
      Mr. McNulty: In the wider context, I would accept that argument. I would expect authorities that sought to put restrictions back in place to justify that decision in the context of how taxis and PHVs fitted into their overall local transport strategy. I would guess—this can only be a guess—that if a PHV and taxi strategy had been at the heart of local transport plans years ago, when deregulation first took place people might have thought twice about that deregulation, because they would have been able to see how it fitted in with all the other aspects of transport in their area.
      As I was saying, we have written to those authorities that have restrictions in place, and they should at least be able to tell us whether there is unmet demand for taxis in their area and whether they have plans to grant new taxi licences accordingly. That has essentially been the legislative position for the last 20 years. We have asked all the local authorities concerned—fairly, I think—to respond by 31 March 2005. We have also made a
      1530
      commitment to review the position in this regard in three years' time, with a view to taking further action if needed.
      Clive Efford: I do not want to labour this point too much, but in the Select Committee's second report—in our response to the OFT's response to our original report—we point out that the modelling suggests that local authorities with entry regulations in place are likely to have lower regulated fares. Bearing that in mind, it would seem logical for authorities without restrictions to consider whether their policy works in the best interest of the consumer.
      Mr. McNulty: They may well do, and it is an entirely fair point, but I will not prescribe how each local authority, with or without restriction, should respond to their local circumstances. That is precisely counter to the theme running through our response to the OFT, which is that local people should discuss local circumstances and come to local remedies within the legislative framework, and within the context of the guidance that we will issue. That is the way matters should go forward, for both those with and without restrictions.
      Mr. Chope: The Minister said earlier that the issue was not one of justification, and yet the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in a written statement in March, said that
      "the Government believe that local authorities should publish and justify their reasons for restricting the number of taxi licences issued."—[Official Report, 18 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 34WS.]
      Mr. McNulty: Well, that was terribly well spotted by the hon. Gentleman. I meant justified in the context of standing up on a pile of bibles and discussing in public policy terms why it is appropriate that restrictions should be maintained. That was the tone of at least some of the contributions. Of course, they must justify. We will not write to them to ask what their policies are—we know what they are. Justification is to be in the context of the latest unmet demand survey, how taxis and PHVs fit within overall local transport strategies, and in relation to all the reasons that I have suggested. I thought that we were having a serious debate about the OFT report and our response to it, rather than a silly little game of call my bluff. But there we have it.
      We have accepted the OFT's recommendations to produce best practice taxi-PHV licensing guidance because we consider that that should help local licensing authorities with a range of licensing issues. There will be full consultation on draft guidance before a final version is published—by the summer, I hope, but we shall wait and see. The guidance will cover most licensing issues, including quantity controls—in the context that I have set out—taxi fare setting, and, as I said earlier, a model local taxi-PHV policy framework for the local transport plan process.
      I should stress that this guidance will of course be on a voluntary basis: ultimately, licensing decisions are matters for local authorities and they will remain so, in the current legislative framework—there was at least a nuance in some Members' contributions that somehow we are about to introduce new legislation, which I know was one of the OFT's recommendations. We have no

      1531
      intention of introducing new legislation, and we feel that what we want to achieve in our response to the OFT, and in terms of maintaining the local dimension, can be done within the existing legislative framework and within the guidance.
      I have already mentioned the importance of taxis and PHVs to socially excluded groups, which is a very strong point. I would now like to say something about their importance to disabled people. Taxis are the form of public transport on which many disabled people depend most. Although they generally travel less often than others, for obvious reasons, when they do so, they make proportionately much greater use of taxis. That is why we encourage local licensing authorities to introduce local policies for accessible taxis before we make accessible taxis mandatory. As I announced last October, we are pursuing a policy that would see regulations introduced in many areas between 2010 and 2020. We are currently considering research findings, which will inform those technical regulations. In the meantime, we have already regulated to ensure that taxi drivers and PHV operators and drivers are under a duty to accept assistance dogs travelling with disabled people and to carry those animals free of charge. That said, of course, there is still much that we can do generally as regards taxis and PHVs before 2010.
      Enforcement is of major importance, so that the taxi and PHV trades are seen to be for legitimate, licensed drivers and vehicles only. We are determined to crack down nationwide on the touts who jeopardise the legitimate taxi trade and encourage all police forces to give this problem the priority that it deserves. In London, for example, a lot of time and effort is going into combating touting.
      Mr. Lepper: I hoped to catch the Minister before he left the issue of disabled taxi customers. Many of my disabled constituents who use taxis feel that one style of vehicle is not necessarily appropriate for all disabled travellers. Many people with disabilities would prefer and find it easier to use a saloon car than, for the sake of argument, a London-style black cab. Does the Department accept that that is so?
      Mr. McNulty: We do. That is absolutely right, and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and others who have done significant research would say quite freely that although the London hackney-style configuration is very useful, certainly for wheelchair access and a range of other disabilities, it is not the 100 per cent. all-singing, all-dancing, all-purpose vehicle for every single form of disability. Without going into the matter too much, that is why I profoundly disagree with the suggestion of a one-tier taxi. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) is entirely right, not least in that the design of some saloons—those taxis that are more like people carriers—is far more appropriate and convenient for those with impaired mobility but who are not in wheelchairs. The whole array of different saloons that are on offer means that it does not follow that only one model is appropriate.
      I want to dwell momentarily on touting. I recently went out on an anti-touting exercise to see for myself the good work being done by the enforcement authorities. I
      1532
      stress that we must not be complacent about the touting problem, but must continue with initiatives such as the recent decision to make the touting offence recordable, to deter persistent offenders. Such high-profile measures contribute greatly to making passengers feel safe when travelling by taxi and PHV.
      To those in London and other urban areas who are tempted after an enjoyable night to jump into the first car that pulls up outside the nightclub, I take this opportunity to say "Don't do it, because you do not know what you are getting into." Unless that is a properly licensed cab or PHV that has been ordered for that customer, they do not know whether it is licensed, whether the driver has a licence, whether it is insured, whether it is roadworthy or whether or not the person behind the wheel is violent or a sex offender. Many people, not least young women—it frightened me when I saw this when out on the exercise in London—are jumping into the backs of cars that are in one form or another potential death traps. They simply should not do that, however much they are tempted simply to get in the car and go home.
      Clive Efford: I could not agree with my hon. Friend more on that point. Does he agree that the reporting of those incidents is t essential to ensure that people are made fully aware that it is an illegal tout that is the cause of the problem? When people understand that, they will be more wary of getting into those vehicles.
      Mr. McNulty: That is absolutely right. Far too often, touting is reported as a problem of the minicab or PHV sector, when it is not. Some of the most vociferous calls for more to be done to raise awareness and change the regulatory framework to stop touting—such as making the offence recordable—come from the legitimate end, which is overwhelmingly the largest, of the PHV industry. This problem is not about dodgy minicab drivers, but about t unlicensed touts who should not be plying their trade in the first place. I was grateful when I went out on the exercise that not only police but benefits officers and people from a range of other public agencies were in tow. Rather than just catching touts whose cars were unroadworthy or had no insurance, those officers caught the odd person who according to their records had been in bed ill for three months, or who had been taking disability allowance and not worked for a number of years. That was a good example of joined-up working.
      Some of the anomalies in the regulations that govern taxis and PHVs in out of London still need to be addressed, as and when they are pointed out to us. This is an enormously complex area with much of the legislative and regulatory framework going back to Victorian times. We will seek to do something about those anomalies.
      There is a little loophole in the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998—a fairly recent piece of legislation—which we want to deal with when we get the opportunity to do so. The 1998 Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham suggested, provides a framework for the licensing of private hire operators, drivers and vehicles in London. It was introduced as a private Member's Bill with Government support. The objective was to introduce a system of licensing for private hire vehicles in London, thereby bringing the

      1533
      capital into line with much of the rest of England and Wales, where touting is less of a problem precisely because that sector has always been licensed.
      The Act was framed initially in terms of giving the Secretary of State the power to appoint a licensing authority. However, under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, responsibility for private hire and taxi licensing in London was transferred from the Secretary of State to the Transport for London organisation. TFL is introducing private hire licensing in three phases. Operators must have held licences since 2001; driving licensing was introduced last year; and vehicle licensing has just been introduced earlier this year. Special arrangements are in place to ensure a smooth transition to a fully regulated system, hopefully by 2006.
      TFL and the trade have requested a change to the 1998 Act in order to close an apparent loophole that allows operators and drivers to work within the licensed structure without being licensed. The existing definition of private hire vehicle requires a vehicle to be licensed if it is made available to the public. Some operators and drivers who service contracts with hospitals, schools and so forth—often serving the most vulnerable people—are avoiding licensing by using the argument that they are not making their vehicles available to the public. A number of contract workers are therefore still operating unlicensed.
      TFL and others, including the GMB, have been told that the Government intend to rectify that problem as soon as parliamentary time permits. I will certainly seek to do all that I can in that regard. It may be possible to test the difficulty more readily under the law, but small areas of law like that can have profound consequences for our attempt to put a fully licensed system in place in London, so they should be dealt with at the earliest opportunity.
      Significant progress has been made in our understanding of where taxis and PHVs fit into the wider transport network. That is all to the good and the excellent reports from the Transport Committee also help in that regard.
      There are a variety of views about the Office of Fair Trading report, and no one who has contributed to the debate has been shy in giving the House their full understanding of it. We believe that our response underlines the fact that we need to deal more fully with certain issues such as guidance across the range of issues that I have outlined. The first key recommendation about quantity control was important. Hon. Members have stressed the significance of the local dimension, local knowledge and local understanding of local markets. We take that point entirely on board, which is why we responded to the OFT report as we did.
      I hope that the OFT report and the Government's response to it has, if nothing else, highlighted the crucial importance of taxis and PHVs throughout our communities. I hope that those who have expressed an interest thus far or those with a longstanding interest in the sector will understand all that we are trying to do in respect of the wide-ranging guidance that we will be issuing to the licensing authorities. They will know how licensing authorities already restrict some controls and will see how they respond to our initial suggestions.
      1534
      We anticipate a rolling programme on a three-yearly basis. We have not yet determined the time frames. However, we are asking authorities by letter to respond by the end of March next year and we intend to respond to those responses by the end of April. The three-year rolling programme of review would start at about that time. I do not believe that the duties involved are too onerous.
      Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am sorry to have missed most of the debate, but I have heard much of what my hon. Friend has said. I agree with the thrust of what the Government are doing. I want to ensure that there is a good provision of taxis and PHVs, as many people cannot afford—or do not want—to use cars. They depend on taxis where there are no public transport services. Many people who choose not to own motor cars depend on public transport, and fill in the gaps with taxis and PHVs. It is most important that the Government promote that option.
      Mr. McNulty: I do not disagree with that. I am sure that there is a good reason to explain why my hon. Friend was not present earlier, but if he had been here he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion confess that he has never driven a car and that he does not have a licence. He manages very well without a car, and would like to continue to do so with the help of a strong and vibrant PHV and taxi sector.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) spoke about Plymouth's unique position, thanks to the 1975 Act that she described. In the first instance, Plymouth council must resolve the matters that she raised. I hope that the guidance that we issue will assist in that regard, as will an exhortation from me—to put it no more strongly—to Plymouth and everywhere else that a PHV and taxi regime has an important place in any local transport plan as part of an integrated transport strategy. I await the city's responses to our requests.
      Linda Gilroy: I am not sure that I heard my hon. Friend correctly earlier, but is that guidance out for consultation? If it does not cover some aspects of the operation of the market in Plymouth, will he accept representations, from me and the city council, in search of clarification?
      Mr. McNulty: I hope that the guidance will be out by the summer, and I assure my hon. Friend that it will be available for consultation. I do not want to pre-empt it, or Plymouth's reaction to it. Plymouth occupies a legislatively unique position, having its own Act to cover taxis. It would be churlish of my Department not to listen to what people have to say about that narrow legislative framework, and to see what gaps there may be in the guidance.
      We have discussed in some detail matters that go slightly wider than the OFT's report and the response to it from the Government and the Select Committee. The debate has been very worth while. I do not want to be too critical of the OFT report, as it came to some good conclusions that we have, broadly, taken on board.

      1535
      However, any omissions in it stem from the fact that there is not a universal and pure market for taxis and PHVs, as the situation varies between towns and licensing authorities. As the Select Committee response notes, there is wide variation in the relationship between the PHV and taxi sectors. Some people never see a hackney cab until they come to London, whereas others have no understanding of experience of minicabs.
      The local peculiarities faced by each licensing authority mean that our decision to leave determinations of quantity restrictions at local level is the right way forward. I think that I heard the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) express agreement with that, on the grounds that it is a splendid example of the new Conservative localism.
      All of a sudden everything is left to the local community. He has clearly pointed out that he understands the word "justification", although not the notion of nuance or irony, but he might just go back to the dictionary and look up the word "hubris"—I will spell it for him if he wants—in telling us how wonderful—
      It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) and (5) (Consideration of estimates etc.) and Order [29 October 2002].

  ESTIMATES, 2004–05
  Resolved,
  That, for the year ending with 31st March 2005, for expenditure by the Department for Transport—
  (1) further resources, not exceeding £5,665,964,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 466,
  (2) a further sum, not exceeding £5,144,950,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
  (3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

  ESTIMATES, 2004–05
  Resolved,
  That, for the year ending with 31st March 2005—
  (1) further resources, not exceeding £195,591,528,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services as set out in HC 466, HC 467, HC 468 and HC 469,
  (2) a further sum, not exceeding £177,378,551,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs of defence and civil services as so set out, and
  (3) limits as set out in HC 466, HC 468 and HC 469 be set on appropriations in aid.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
  Ordered,
  That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Paul Boateng, Dawn Primarolo, John Healey and Ruth Kelly do prepare and bring it in.

  ESTIMATES, 2004–05
    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
    Ruth Kelly accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the service of the year ending with 31 March 2005 and to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending with 31 March 2005; to appropriate the supply authorised in this Session of Parliament; and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 28 June 2004, and to be printed. [Bill No.121.]
    EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),
    EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

      ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN DEFENCE AGENCY
      That this House takes note of the unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 26th May 2004 from the Ministry of Defence on the Council Joint Action on the establishment of a European Defence Agency; endorses the Government's support for the Council Joint Action to create the European Defence Agency and its swift implementation; and supports the Government's wider aims in seeking a key role for the Agency in the development of European Union military capabilities.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
      Question agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Tuesday 29th June,—
    (1) proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment of the House relating to London schools may continue for three hours or until Four o'clock, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and
    (2) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Edward Leigh relating to Public Accounts not later than Seven o'clock or three hours after their commencement, whichever is the later; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Ordered,
    That the Horse Passports (England) Regulations 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 1397), dated 19th May 2004, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

    PETITIONS

      Hospitals (St. Albans)
      6.2 pm
      Mr. Kerry Pollard: I bring a petition from many thousands of residents of St. Albans and the surrounding areas which
      declares that there is a need for a new acute hospital and centre of excellence—
      to include a cancer centre—to serve the community of central Hertfordshire and]

      1537
      that there should be a medical school linked to the University of Hertfordshire and that St. Albans City Hospital should continue to provide non-acute services.
      We are grateful for the help of the St. Albans Observer in this petition.
      The petitioners remain, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Pets
      6.3 pm
      Janet Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to present a petition of more than 1,000 signatures which have been collected by my constituent Miss Murielle Elliot of 7 Foxhill drive, Rossendale. The petition of residents of the Rossendale valley
      Declares that a great many pets—
      particularly cats—
      have been stolen from their owners in the Rossendale area.
      The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make provision for the protection of pets, and for the return of stolen pets to their rightful owners.
      And the Petitioners remain, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

    Schools Reorganisation (Northumberland)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
    6.4 pm
    Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad to have this opportunity to focus the Minister's attention on education in Northumberland and in particular to seek some clarification and help for parents and communities as they consider the difficult issues of reorganisation that they now face. Parents, children and school staff and communities in Northumberland face the prospect of a massive reorganisation of schools, which on present plans will change the age range of every school in the county and will require a substantial building programme. It has generated a major public campaign of opposition, with many thousands of supporters in the county's middle schools, and different views have been put forward by some of the high school and first school teachers and parents.
    The background to all that can be found in a critical Ofsted report on the Northumberland education authority, which stood in marked contrast to the very good Ofsted reports on many of the schools threatened by that reorganisation. The report referred to the fact that the county has one of the highest levels of surplus places in the country and argued that that cannot be explained entirely by the fact that there are many very small schools serving isolated rural areas, especially in my constituency.
    The report criticises the county's past attempts to deal with the problem by ill thought-out school closures, which were rejected by the adjudicator. It says that
    "this is not an LEA which evaluates its own performance rigorously".
    It also says that
    "the LEA does not engage sufficiently with its schools or with the local authorities to find innovative or imaginative solutions to the problems it faces."
    In addition, Northumberland and its schools, which already suffer from a poor standard spending assessment that is 8.5 per cent. below the national average, have been turned down again and again in bids for education action zones and specialist school status. The impression given was that the Department for Education and Skills would not help Northumberland unless something drastic was done. And it was.
    The chief education officer of Gateshead and a team of officials were drafted in to take over on a temporary basis, and a massive reorganisation plan was produced. It involved the replacement of the county's three-tier system with a two-tier system, replacing transfer at 9 and 13 with transfer at 11. The plan depends on £270 million in funding from the Government's "Building Schools for the Future" programme and on capital receipts from the sale of school sites.
    Following widespread public discussion and in the face of strong opposition from middle schools, including a 35,000-signature petition, the county's executive voted in favour of the two-tier system. At the full council on 9 June, the proposals were again carried, but with an opposition amendment making two-tier the preferred option but putting the three-tier system out for

    1539
    consultation alongside it. The Church of England and Roman Catholic dioceses have indicated an intention to move to a two-tier system.
    I have much experience of the county's present system. Both my children were educated in it throughout their education. My first wife, who died six years ago, taught extensively in the county's middle schools and high schools. Middle schools have considerable advantages. In my experience, most of them are very happy schools, with an atmosphere of enthusiasm among both staff and children. The Rothbury Church of England middle school produced a wonderful video as part of its campaign that vividly portrayed the shared enthusiasm of staff, parents, community and children in support of the school, and a generally enthusiastic attitude towards education during the years between 9 and 13.
    Most of the middle schools have good or excellent Ofsted reports and they provide good opportunities for the oldest children to take on positions of responsibility. The most recent visit I made to Berwick middle school was to attend a meeting of the school council, which consists entirely of pupils. No staff were present at all. The pupils engaged in a mature and carefully thought-out discussion with me about the advantages of middle schools. Many of them were exercising responsibility in the school at the ages of 12 and 13, or in their classes at lower ages. It reminded me forcibly that in such schools those who take responsibility do so at a relatively young age. From my observation of those children, that equips them well for later school and adult life.
    Another advantage of middle schools is that because they were nearly all built as secondary modern schools, they are spacious, with good facilities for science, craft subjects and sport. The presence of specialist teachers benefits the age groups from 9 to 11.
    In rural areas, transfer at 13 is felt by parents to be much better than having 11 and 12-year-olds travel 15, 20 or even 30 miles each way every day to high school, waiting at town bus stations and changing transport, sometimes several times in a journey. That advantage was vividly expressed in a letter from a Rothbury parent, which states:
    "In the case of rural children there will be social exclusion from an earlier age if this 2-tier idea is forced upon us because they will not be able to access out-of-school activities from 11 instead of 13 years of age. Do you know that when our children undertake after-school activities at High school in Morpeth, this can mean parents undertaking 40–64 mile round trips to pick them up from school?"
    The same letter points out:
    "Our 11 year olds will be travelling between 1 h 50 min and 4 hrs a day."
    As the letter says, that will mean that they face days longer than those recommended by the European working time directive.
    So why change? If the system is to be changed, parents need to be convinced by the educational arguments, not the money arguments. The Department's answers to parliamentary questions from me and from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) are studiously non-committal on the educational case for and against middle schools. The LEA has produced data suggesting that too many
    1540
    children make too little progress between the ages of seven and 13, and high schools argue that transfer in the middle of key stages 2 and 3 is disruptive and at odds with the national curriculum and the exam timetable.
    Under a two-tier system, primary schools would be wholly responsible for key stages 1 and 2 and high schools for everything after that. Some of our high schools have had serious problems in raising achievement levels and their heads believe that they would do better if they had the full age range and the new staffing and accommodation opportunities that reorganisation could provide.
    Many first schools see the change as a lifesaver for village schools. Back in the 1970s, many communities objected to the creation of middle schools because it took two age group; from local schools, making many of them liable to closure. It also involved nine-year-olds making long journeys to the new middle schools. However, there is wide interest in the federal arrangements for some small rural schools suggested in the county council's proposals, which build on the county's successful work in recent years building up clusters of small rural schools that work together and have some shared support teaching. The idea was pushed back by lack of funding but it was extremely successful and could be developed under the federal ideas for small schools. It was also accepted by some of the people who were opposed to the change to the two-tier system.
    Parents fear that the change is too much driven by arguments about buildings and money. Surplus places are clearly at the heart of it. Over the years, we have had many arguments about whether calculations on surplus places are either fair or realistic, especially in villages where the school's facilities are used as a vital resource for the whole community.
    We should remember that buildings were a key factor in the decision to introduce middle schools in Northumberland in the first place. Most of those schools are in former secondary modern buildings that could not be utilised effectively in the 11 to 18 comprehensive system, which was being introduced with very limited capital expenditure. Those were the newest buildings that the education authority had on its hands and part of the motive for creating middle schools was to make use of them, although they then became the focus of real commitment from head teachers who believed in middle schools as an extremely effective part of the system.
    The present plan depends on releasing £31 million through capital receipts from the sale of school sites to fund the primary end of the system. However, it is difficult to see how that can be achieved while Northumberland is so severely restricted in the amount of house building that is permitted. The proposed figures allow only 30 houses a year in Berwick borough and between 65 and 70 a year in Alnwick district. That leaves the sale of sites dependent on hope value that may not be realised.
    Central Government funding from the "Building Schools for the Future" programme will be essential for the building and extension of high schools. For example, Alnwick will require a new high school and major investment will be needed at the Berwick high school site. Parents need to know whether the Government will

    1541
    put their weight and their funding behind the reorganisation. If the money is not forthcoming, the whole scheme will collapse and there will be educational chaos. Bearing in mind that every proposed closure and every change in the status of a school can be challenged through the formal statutory process, and that parents will—understandably and rightly—use those challenges if they are not satisfied that they will get a better system after reorganisation, the Government must provide reassurance and answer some crucial questions. If they do not, the whole process will drag on. Indeed, on that point, some people have suggested that the whole thing should be put on ice while we hold the referendum on regional assemblies and reach a decision as to whether Northumberland will become a single-tier area or be divided into two areas.
    I am not in favour of deferring the matter, because whether the result was a new single authority or two new authorities, they would face similar decisions and probably reach similar conclusions, with the added complication that, if two authorities were created, there would be movement across the boundary between the two areas, as well as all the upheaval of creating two education authorities. As education would be split between two unitary authorities, instead of being a whole-county responsibility, a significant number of my constituents would have to travel from one of the new proposed authorities to the other. So there are too many complications and disadvantages in deferring the issue until a possible local government reorganisation. We must face up to the decision and produce a timetable that can be achieved, perhaps based on one that the county has proposed. That can be attempted only if there is some confidence that the end result will be better and parents' anxieties and fears can be allayed—so far, those of many have not.
    Parents need answers from the Government on key questions. Are officials at the Department for Education and Skills telling Northumberland county council that there will be no money for new schools unless they get rid of middle schools? That is the impression that has been pretty firmly left by the county council, although the chairman of the education committee denied that when I put it to him on the radio this morning. The story is that those in Whitehall have said, "Sort your system out, or you will continue to be unsuccessful"—as unsuccessful as Northumberland has been in many of its recent bids. At least, the Department is virtually on record as saying, "Unless you do something about your surplus places by this or some other means, you will get no additional money for new schools." Are the Government putting on pressure? If so, and they have good reason for doing so, they should tell us.
    Do the Government believe that the middle school system is less educationally effective than transfer at 11 years? If so, is there any research evidence for that view that would convince the parents who are so committed to middle schools? If the county undertakes the enormous task of reorganisation. will the money be there to build the new high schools, or could all this be in vain? What a disaster it would be if we embarked on that horrifyingly difficult and complicated process and, somehow, the money was not forthcoming at the end of the day.
    If the first schools become schools for five to 11-year-olds, how will they provide the facilities for science, technology and sport that have been available to nine to
    1542
    11-year-olds in the middle schools? The first schools do not have provision for that age group and so do not have developed science and technology facilities—even the rooms, let alone the staffing—or the extensive sports facilities that nine to 11-year-olds can now benefit from in the middle schools.
    What if the county decides that some areas must get special treatment? If the county accepts that areas such as Rothbury and Wooler, for example, need to keep middle schools because of the travelling distance, even if the rest of the county changes, will the Department accept a mixed system and still give Northumberland the funds that it needs for new schools? Other places in other constituencies might be candidates for that—for example, Bellingham and Allendale.
    Will rural pathfinder bids be possible to provide resources for special schemes at rural schools? As well as the possibility of retaining middle schools or combined first and middle schools in some rural communities, some other ideas are forthcoming. At Belford, for example, a learning village centre of excellence is proposed for three to 14-year-olds, with youth and adult learning facilities as well—an exciting and pioneering idea, making use of existing buildings, while enabling children to stay in the village. Such ideas could benefit from rural pathfinder funds, but we need to know whether that is a serious possibility if such things are to be pursued.
    Parents, communities and the teaching staff of schools are facing difficult choices against the background of suggestions and hints that the abolition of middle schools is, in practice, a condition of future funding. There is a great deal of uncertainty about what resources are on offer to carry through any change, thus a great deal of anxiety. Ministers need to come clean about their attitudes, so that there can be a genuine and open debate about which system is best for Northumberland's children and young people.
    I ask the Minister to put himself in the position of a parent of children starting at a middle school in Northumberland and to consider what it would take to convince him that losing the advantages of that system will be effectively compensated for in those children's educational experience by something very significantly better. That is what he and the authority must do between them if such a change is to be carried through.
    6.19 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on securing this debate and on having the opportunity to speak on behalf of his constituents and other residents of Northumberland, and particularly on bringing his family experience to bear on his opening remarks. I am acutely aware of the very high level of concern and interest in this matter among people living and working in Northumberland, which is obviously particularly felt among not only parents and pupils but staff, governors and the broader schools community. I shall seek in responding to the debate to address the particular concerns that he has raised.
    We welcome and support the stated aims of the local education authority in conducting the review: to raise standards and to transform and improve the education

    1543
    service. We understand that the LEA is reviewing provision on the basis of a possible move to a primary and secondary system, as the right hon. Gentleman set out. My understanding is that its proposal is to start public consultation on a county plan in the autumn.
    The right hon. Gentleman challenged me to come clean on the view in the Department for Education and Skills. My starting point in seeking to do so is to say that we do not prescribe a particular pattern of provision. That is very much to be determined locally. He asked specifically whether our officials are telling Northumberland that there will be no money for new schools unless it abolishes the middle schools. The answer to that is emphatically no. There is no suggestion of Ministers or officials in the DFES prescribing that.
    In more general policy terms, the Department knows that the national position is varied. The majority of LEAs have a primary and secondary model, but a significant minority operate middle school systems. We accept as a Department that both systems can be effective, and we are not aware of any clear research evidence to suggest that one is preferable to the other. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman set out arguments for both the two-tier system and the three-tier system. Having seen both in practice in different parts of the country, I think that his points are a legitimate part of the debate.
    The right hon. Gentleman made the point that the county may undergo considerable reorganisation and then face the question of whether funds will be made available to enable that to be implemented on the ground. He referred to the "Building Schools for the Future" programme, which aims to rebuild or renew all secondary schools in England over the next 10 to 15 years. The first wave of "Building Schools for the Future" was announced a couple of months back. Northumberland was not successful in that first wave of the programme, but will certainly feature in a future wave. We hope to be able to make an announcement on the future waves later this year. Clearly, there is contact between our officials and those in Northumberland on that.
    Mr. Beith: This is a crucial matter of timing. I can only assume that Northumberland failed in the previous bid because it was too early a stage in the process. Is it therefore likely that some clear indication about funding possibilities could be given during the autumn or towards the end of this year, when the reorganisation is under discussion and it will be important to give some assurance to parents?
    Mr. Twigg: Absolutely. Only 14 LEAs were successful in the first wave of "Building Schools for the Future". We are hoping to be in a position to make announcements in the early part of the autumn about the next wave. That will be important as a reassurance to Northumberland, as well as to schools in other parts of the country.
    The right hon. Gentleman raised the possibility that at least some areas—he mentioned Rothbury and Wooler—in Northumberland will keep middle schools because of travelling distances, and asked for the
    1544
    Department's view on a mixed system and whether it would still be prepared to fund Northumberland if it decides to go down that route. I emphasise that funding from "Building Schools for the Future" is not dependent on the adoption of a two-tier system; it is not dependent on having a primary and secondary model. Other parts of the country continue to operate a three-tier system with middle schools, and they are preparing their applications and are in discussion with the Department about the funding under BSF that could be available to their schools. When we consider proposals as part of "Building Schools for the Future", we will be concerned to ensure that there has been appropriate consideration and consultation at the local level to secure the local consensus necessary for the particular application that an authority has made. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman made a specific suggestion about rural pathfinder bids. I want to take that suggestion away and write to him about it.
    "Building Schools for the Future" is a hugely ambitious national programme of renewal for all schools. Large authorities, in particular rural authorities, may wish to phase their programmes within "Building Schools for the Future", with clusters of different schools reciving funding at different stages. Those are the sorts of discussions that we are having with other county and large metropolitan areas. It may well be a suitable way for us to proceed in Northumberland. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman, setting t hat out in more detail.
    I have a couple of other things to say about the position in Northumberland and how the process will move forward. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Ofsted inspection, which was conducted in June 2003 and published last September. It set out a number of serious concerns about the local education authority, and there had been some deterioration since the previous inspection in 1999. He set out some of the ways in which the LEA has been trying to address those weaknesses. The Department for Education and Skills has worked closely with the LEA to assist it in drawing up and progressing an action plan to overcome the weaknesses and some of the problems highlighted. We welcome some of the early signs of progress as a consequence of that work.
    The right hon. Gentleman also rightly said that surplus places are a significant issue in Northumberland. Of course, that is not unique to Northumberland because of demographic trends, in particular the declining number of children of primary school age. The latest review of surplus places last year shows an overall level in Northumberland of around 5,000. I emphasise that it is very much a matter for individual LEAs to decide whether and how they reduce their number of surplus places. I welcome some of the innovative ideas to which he referred—collaboration, clusters and federations—as possible models in moving forward. The other possibility is to look to extended schools and using some of the surplus capacity in school buildings to provide extended services for the local community, rather than simply to take the option of closing a school down all together, thereby losing that critical asset for the local community, which is especially important to those in rural areas.
    I have spoken about "Building Schools for the Future", so let me conclude by saying a little about where the process goes from here. It is important that

    1545
    the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, and the schools, parents and pupils in Northumberland, are aware of where the debate and consultation will go now. The combination of issues that he referred to form the backdrop for the consultation that the LEA will undertake. Any LEA that decides to reorganise provision takes that decision locally Such decisions are not taken in the Department or by Ministers.
    The LEA will consult all interested parties, as is required by law. It must issue statutory notices in a newspaper, post them at the gates of the affected schools and put them in another prominent place locally. There is then a six-week period for objections and comments, and the notice and other supporting documentation need to be sent to the local school organisation committee. If no objections are received, the LEA may proceed to implement its proposals. If objections are received, the proposal goes to the school organisation committee, made up of five or six groups representing the major stakeholders in the provision of education. If the school organisation committee cannot reach a unanimous decision, the case is referred to the independent schools adjudicator for a final decision.
    We recently issued new guidance from the Department for those who are publishing and deciding upon these proposals for changes to local school organisation, making it clear that the Secretary of State wants to see local education authorities organise provision so that places are where parents want them. We are clear that the removal of surplus places must always be in support of the agenda of raising standards and matching places with parental choice.
    I reiterate that any decision to change the current pattern of provision rests, first, with the LEA and, secondly, needs to support those key policy priorities of improving standards and ensuring that we maximise choice for parents. The Department does not specify the type of provision that should apply. It is true, as I said earlier, that increasingly LEAs have adopted a two-tier approach, but there are a number of LEAs that
    1546
    successfully operate three-tier systems with middle schools, with the benefits of middle schools, as set out by the right hon. Gentleman. I can confirm that there are no plans on the part of the Department to phase out middle schools, as a matter of national policy, or to make our funding of particular programmes, including "Building Schools for the Future", in any way dependent on that sort of reorganisation.
    Our priority as a Department is to give support to local communities in reaching these decisions themselves. I hope that the community in Northumberland will have the opportunity to have a full and informed debate about the merits of the proposed reorganisation, in which parents, governors, pupils and the wider community can seriously consider the advantages and disadvantages of the status quo as against the proposed change in the system.
    I can certainly reassure the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents that whatever decision is reached locally, the major programme of investment that we are undertaking through "Building Schools for the Future" will be available to the schools in Northumberland to support their improvement, in the way that we seek to improve schools throughout the country. Our other capital programmes in the Department are also available to support first schools, which obviously by their nature will not qualify for "Building Schools for the Future". However, there will be opportunities, for example, through target capital funding as well as the mainstream capital funding of primary schools, to ensure that those schools are also receiving the investment that they need.
    I finish where I started, which is to thank the right hon. Gentleman for airing this important issue for the people of his constituency. I very much hope that a full, open and rigorous debate can happen among the people of Northumberland.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MARTIN CATON in the Chair]

Nanotechnology
[Relevant documents: Fifth Report from the Science and Technology Committee Session 2003–04 HC56-I and Sixth Special Report Session 2003–04 HC650 (Government Reply)]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
2.30 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Caton. It is a pleasure to be under your jurisdiction and we look forward to a debate that will, no doubt, supplant Wimbledon on televisions all over the country.
The Science and Technology Committee has been considering nanotechnology for some time. The first occasion on which anybody in the country heard about it was when Prince Charles spoke of his concerns. Overnight, it replaced the technology of genetic modification as the danger that we faced. There was talk of runaway self-replicating machines, or grey goo, as the prince calmly called it. The planet was in danger. There was a skewed public debate on the issue that diverted attention from the serious concepts involved in nanotechnology. Those are, of course, the strategic and imperative issues facing the country in relation to other nations and how to extend our research pathways into the industrial developments that the technology makes possible.
I do not want to define nanotechnology, because to do that is a final year question in universities. Nobody has ever found a way of defining it properly. It covers things that are very small, such as 10-9—the atomic, rather than the molecular, level. Eric Drexler introduced the term in the book "Engines of Creation" in 1986 to describe the physicist Richard Feynman's vision of nanomechanics, creating atomically precise products, and started the ball rolling. It was associated with new cures for cancers and new drugs at atomic level that harnessed themselves to small tissue areas, overcoming the pressures that people in the world of chemistry faced over big molecules and thinking about smaller molecule development. It is an exciting field and I shall say more about it later.
Nanotechnology caused problems in the beginning, however, because although there were, on the one hand, the positive aspects of what might develop from the research and extending that research, on the other, there were the inherent dangers, as presented by His Royal Highness. There was talk about replicating weapons, and people became confused and more concerned about the potential risks than about the potential developments. There was a polarisation, in other words, and that has hindered research and discussion across the planet on the advances that can be made for the benefit of humanity. The idea of replicating molecules taking over the planet, which Radio 4 loved as a story at low prime time—about 7.20 in the morning—could not be seriously defended.
440WH
We have a new, powerful technology in the world and we must consider how it can be used to replenish scarce resources and develop new drugs and new technologies. I was heartened by one aspect of the Government's response—although not by much of it, because many of the answers were one-word answers and I suspected that there were two-word answers waiting in the wings; there was a single word for most of the implications of our study. The response talks of interesting developments associated with the regional development agencies. What was heartening was to learn that the country has developed new technologies under the umbrella of nanotechnology.
The Select Committee held many sessions, visited Germany and talked to companies in Bristol and to academics. We were well served by two eminent advisers, Professor John Ryan from the Oxford interdisciplinary research collaboration in bio-nanotechnology and Professor Paul Atherton, president of the European Society for Precision Engineering and Nanotechnology, both of whom were on the national strategy advisory group. Our friend Professor Michael Elves, who used to work at Glaxo Wellcome, also supported us.
We held five oral evidence sessions. We talked to research councils, regional development agencies, small and large companies, academic researchers and scientific learned societies. The Royal Society is also doing a study on this aspect of nanotechnology and has privately welcomed our report. We received a lot of written submissions and had an informal meeting with the previous director general of the research councils, John Taylor, in his later days as a member. He had developed a strategy for Government and took the lid off some of the problems that he had had in making the nanotechnology project in this country come forward.
We were heartened to talk to people in Europe—in Germany in particular, when we went to Dresden and Berlin—about how they were developing nanotechnology. It is interesting that nanotechnology is being taught in the international community by business, academics, research councils and so on. It is an international prospect for new technology that has many potential benefits. It has been hailed as the next industrial revolution. Millions of dollars and yen are being spent in an effort to get ahead of the game on research and development.
We wanted our inquiry to uncover what the UK was doing. There are some interesting projects in certain parts of this country that get good support from regional development agencies. In other parts of the country, the situation is not so vibrant. The question is: are we going to let the revolution pass us by and watch other countries inside and outside Europe stride ahead as they have in other areas over the years—in electronics, computing and so on? We have the talent, we have the will and we have to ensure that the Government join with that creativity.
Dr. Desmond Turner: Does my hon. Friend share my sense of déjàvu? In many ways, the inquiry took us back to one that we carried out five years ago into the innovation process and its effectiveness in Great Britain. We were saddened to find several deficiencies that kept Britain back. One was the failure of the venture capital market to bring companies

441WH
through certain stages of development and another the timidity of the Department of Trade and Industry in providing capital support for small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly when they were getting close to market. That was when it became acutely difficult. This inquiry found that that was still the case, which was saddening, because I do not think that any of us want to see nanotechnology joining the other technologies on which Britain has done the initial work but has missed out on the benefits.
Dr. Gibson: I agree with my hon. Friend that that was the substance of a large part of our report. We looked at the ability of the UK science base, as perpetrated through the DTI, to turn research brass into commercial gold. In the report, we mentioned taking a lead and recommended dedicated proof of concept funds, as they have in Scotland, to be allocated in loans to high-tech companies proving the move to the next stage of innovation. It is sad to say that the DTI replied:
"Not accepted. There is no evidence at present to justify such an intervention."
We have heard that before about giving companies the ability to move from the initial stage to commercial exploitation. We asked what the DTI had done to assist that in the years that we have been banging on about it. We asked what research underpinned such a complacent attitude—which is what it seems. Many people want to develop nanotechnology, but find it difficult to access that particular funding mechanism. There may be too many or too few, but if one has a new idea in the nanotechnology arena, it is very difficult to find out how to push it forward. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The story is very familiar. Something seems to happen only in California and certainly in Germany because of the Fraunhöfer institutes. There is a mechanism there, in which, for example, if someone receives money from local industry to support an idea, the Government put in the same money to help it.
We talked in our report about tax credits. Again, there have been welcome and amazing moves in terms of research and development tax credits. However, we must re-examine that area if we are to make happen what my hon. Friend wants. We have the ability and the creativity, but there is still frustration, which requires a positive response from the DTI in terms of tax credits and moving into proof of concept.
We have heard only positive comments about our report from the scientific community. I shall select just one quote from the Institute of Physics. When we asked the question, "Too little, too late?", they said, "Too true." As I mentioned, the Taylor report was a really epic move by the DTI, which has picked up the issue and now knows that it is important. Our criticism is that it has not invested fast enough. John Taylor, the last director general of the research councils, provoked a reaction in the DTI by his report on a strategy for commercialisation of nanotechnology. Lord Sainsbury, who is very well respected in the scientific community, announced in July a package of £90 million over six years. It was said that that would be supplemented by an investment from industry, the regional development agencies and the research councils to make a total of
442WH
some £540 million over six years from 2003. That is not insignificant, but the question is: is it enough to take us forward in a very competitive world? What do people out there think about that?
Germany, for example, is spending £200 million in 2005 alone. The US, as always, is spending more—£2 billion over the next four years—and Japan will have spent an incredible £2,000 billion by 2010. It is not that we do not have the ideas or the creativity, but we must create the political will to join in the process. In the last month or so, during the European strategy for nanotechnology talks, there was talk about tripling the investment in nanotechnology in Europe, so that we can keep pace with Japan and the USA. However, I do not think that that is currently on the agenda and I invite the Minister to tell us how we are responding to that European initiative. We must wake up to the reality that nanotechnology is important and either we play with the big boys and girls or we fall far behind.
However, there is a blue horizon. Next week, there will be a scientific investment in this country, which will be channelled through the Treasury and the DTI. That will put lots of money into scientific progress, which will relate to the economy and jobs and put us up there in the top league of players I am really looking forward to hearing from the Chancellor, or whoever speaks about the issue, that nanotechnology will be a major feature. One reads all the time about how we are going to be up there, but nanotechnology is the up and coming thing, as biotechnology was once the up and coming thing—albeit with an odd fluctuation about winning the argument over genetic modification. It is happening and we are still developing research in the field.
If we do not currently have the spending power of other countries, we must focus our investment on one or two world-class centres of excellence; that was the Committee's decision. Those centres can be a magnet for international research and commercial activity. We said that that was how to compete, and the European strategy also recommended that. We should put excellence into one centre, rather than scatter it all in a diluted way across the country. That was the view of the Taylor report, as John Taylor told us when we spoke to him in his latter days as research director. Yet the Government have watered down the funding and are going to establish a network that will scatter the Government's £90 million funding throughout the country. They think that they are just adjusting and widening the Taylor report, but they reject the main conclusions of that report, which were that two world-class nanofabrication facilities are necessary. That could also happen with European money from framework 6 or elsewhere, to ensure that we are part of a European network.
The arguments this week about Europe are not reflected by the collaboration between professionals at this level, such as CERN and a project developed by physicists in Geneva. Successful work is going on across European barriers. This is another arena in which we could score and ensure that European interaction plays an important part in developing scientific creativity, job creation and new technologies and products. We will have trouble with some countries that will not want to get involved. That is why we must engage at a European level in direct argument about the science and technology of which this country is at the forefront. We

443WH
must persuade, cajole or enthuse other countries to get involved. What is the Government's reaction to the European creativity that came from the recent report to the commissioners?
Another aspect of the policy that deeply worried the Committee was the ability of regional development agencies to provide the money to play a part in the development of regional strategies. Several people from nanotechnology centres said that regional development agencies were off-beam and had not engaged with nanotechnology. It was felt that they did not know what it all meant and were still in the grey gooey area—they did not see what the new technology might lead to. It was also felt that regional development agencies—although not in every part of the country—had not engaged with science and technology at all. In my region, the East of England Development Agency has just set up its council after a bit of agitation. Time moves on and we have got to move fast in this game. The north-west and north-east have moved ahead very fast and developed new green chemistries based on nanotechnology. They have moved with alacrity and ensured that there is interaction between universities and industry. The Government must get stuck into the regional policy and examine why science and innovation are moving at different speeds in different areas. How will the Minister address any conflicts that have arisen?
I do not want to go into technical details about microsystems and nanosystems, but there is a mixture of different types of technology at different levels, and it seems that nanotechnology does not rate as highly as microtechnology in the Department of Trade and Industry frontiers. The long-term funding of enterprises in different structures is novel and challenging to British industry, the British scientific community and certainly to regional development agencies. It is a good that the Government have recognised the challenge and invested money.
Our report states that the Government have been muddled in their handling of the issue. We accuse them of announcing the main elements of a strategy before appointing a strategic advisory group to provide expert advice—they have put the cart before the horse. The Government deny that and talk of the strategy being developed. The division of £90 million into a £40 million strand for capital projects and a £50 million strand for applied research was announced in January 2003. The nanotechnology strategic advisory board met for the first time in June 2003 and a network director was not appointed until January 2004. I hope that the Minister will not dispute those facts. We can see that a decision on how much money to put in was made before there was a strategic advisory board to think about how to use the money. The DTI responses were all of one word. I do not think that that is particularly a result of laziness or arrogance; rather, the issue simply needs a champion in the DTI to make progress. However, it certainly did not help us that we found the decision-making process difficult to understand.
UK industry has not been quick to respond to the potential of nanotechnology either. It will not necessarily be about small companies. Big companies, such as Unilever, can take on board this type of technology, and such companies should have been galvanised much earlier. They should have been brought
444WH
together and their heads knocked together, so that they saw that the technology was available and engaged with it.
The Government complained about the lack of industrial interest, but now that funding has been announced, the research and capital projects proposals have been massively oversubscribed. The point is that the interest already existed, so the Government have, if anything, been dilatory in this arena. The industrial interest has always been there. We must simply find a better way to establish common ground, so that we can work together to develop British industry.
In summary, the DTI has handled nanotechnology pretty badly. In reflective or private moments, many of the Ministers might admit that. We would not expect them to do so in public, but I imagine that in general they think that we have been slow in starting the process. We need leadership, focus and support for the areas in which Britain can excel. We might not be leading the world in the nanotechnology revolution, but let us be part of it.
2.52 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), the Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, on securing yet another debate on one of our reports. The report, the fifth of the Session, is entitled "Too little too late? Government Investment in Nanotechnology". Its bottom line, or final conclusion, to which the Chairman referred, is that Government investment probably is too little too late, but it is not too late for the Government to accelerate that investment and to catch up with some of our major competitors. I shall develop that theme later.
This year, I was privileged to be invited to be chairman of a new venture: the Bolton Technical Innovation Centre Ltd. It is the first junior incubator of its type in the United Kingdom—perhaps in the world; we are trying to find that out. The keys to our new £2.2 million building, which was funded by the Northwest Development Agency, were handed over just two or three weeks ago.
Bolton TIC will provide an out-of-school experience for all Bolton's nine to 19-year-olds in science, engineering and technology, using state-of-the-art equipment—not second-hand or thrown out equipment—purchased, loaned or given by local and regional industry. Pupils will innovate, design and produce in that innovative building. I have written an article on Bolton TIC for a future edition of Science in Parliament. I will also seek an Adjournment debate to give that innovative project some publicity, because it is a model that could be repeated by regional development agencies throughout the country.
Earlier this year, Bolton TIC had a taster day at which a number of presentations were made to excite people into contributing money, materials and human resources to the venture. We are looking for many volunteers and volunteer financing. Attending that day was a gentleman called Bob Mehalso of Microteca Associates, who gave an extremely stimulating presentation during which he described the nature of nanotechnology. His company is about to set up production facilities in the north-west—on the old

445WH
Plessey site in Liverpool, I think. It produces inkjet printers for Hewlett-Packard, for example, and fuel injection systems for all Ford cars produced worldwide.
Bob Mehalso described traditional engineering as negative engineering: this report describes it as top-down engineering. For example, holes can be drilled in metals, which removes metal from the original block or sheet of material. That is a loss of material, so it is negative engineering. However, that type of engineering cannot produce holes fine enough for the inkjet printers that we require these days, nor can it produce the fine fuel injection systems required for today's fuel efficiency needs. In the latter case, the finer the hole for the fuel injector, the more efficient the car engine will become, with a huge consequent saving in fuel costs, which helps the environment and reduces climate change.
Using nanotechnology, however, holes are built up using individual atoms or molecules. The addition of material to a template creates a new type of engineering, called positive engineering or bottom-up engineering, as our report describes it. Other applications of nanotechnology already exist: in sunscreens, in self-cleaning windows for skyscrapers or even for homes in this country—those were invented by Pilkington Glass—and in nanotubes to produce lighter and extremely strong materials for the fabrication of objects such as tennis racquets. A company called Babolat is already manufacturing them.
Carbon nanotubes are 100 times stronger than steel and extremely light, even compared with aluminium. Providing that they can be mass-produced—a large hurdle that we have yet to overcome—they have tremendous potential in a new area of engineering. Nanotubes are tiny rolled-up sheets of graphitic carbon which can encapsulate other atoms, such as metal atoms, which bestow electronic properties on nanotubes, enabling them to be used in new electronic devices.
Scientists in the Netherlands have recently demonstrated a new type of logic gates, which are the basis of the modern computer. These are based on single nanotubes and are therefore extremely miniature, compared with existing logic gates. That leads to the idea of further shrinking highly miniaturised electronic devices.
So what is nanotechnology? The Japanese scientist, Norio Taniguchi, who was interested in making extremely thin films of very exact dimensions, first defined the word "nanotechnology" in 1971 as
"the production technology that aims to achieve precision and fineness of structure on the scale of a nanometre."
The word "nanotechnology" is derived from the Greek word "nanos", meaning "dwarf", and is the construction of materials using individual atoms or molecules. Since the size of atoms and molecules is measured in nanometres, that is nanotechnology. It covers a range of scale from 0.1 to 100 nanometres. A nanometre is one billionth of a metre, or approximately 10 hydrogen molecules lying end to end. To give an idea of the scale of the science that we are considering, a human hair is approximately 80,000 to 100,000 nanometres in diameter.
446WH
One of the most powerful tools underpinning nanotechnology is the family of scanning probe microscopes, which were first developed in the 1980s. Britain played a leading part in those developments. They operate through physical interactions between an extremely ultra-fine tip on the microscope and individual atoms on a surface, whatever that might be. They can reveal some remarkable images of surfaces. Don Eigler of IBM gave us the most dramatic illustration of what those microscopes can do when he spelled out "IBM" in individual atoms and revealed it to the world using a scanning, tunnelling microscope. It was a dramatic scientific illustration of the power of nanotechnology.
As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, nanotechnology is different from microtechnology, but the Government do not seem to have realised that. The two are often confused, but a micrometre is one thousandth of a millimetre or one thousand nanometres, so there is a huge difference in scale. Of course, microtechnology is already well developed, and there is a danger that investment in the research and development of nanotechnology will end up as investment in microtechnology. Lord Sainsbury did not separate the two when he gave evidence to the Select Committee. He said that
"it really does not make any sense commercially to make a distinction between them."
The Government's response to our report, which was published this month, confirms that they believe that nanotechnologies will emerge from microtechnologies. The Committee begs to disagree. We believe that if that distinction is not made, there will be an inadequate focus on this new industrial revolution of nanotechnology. Lord Sainsbury seems to believe that the microtechnology industry will evolve into a nanotechnology industry, but evolutions can be slow. The Committee's message is that by the time that evolution happens, Britain will have been left behind yet again in a rapidly emerging technological revolution.
The application of microtechnology has allowed the miniaturisation of electronic devices, to which I referred. However, as we found out on a visit to a large silicon chip production plant that employs 5,000 people in the city of Dresden, we are getting close to the limits of miniaturisation, which uses silicon as a material, and alternatives are urgently needed if we are to miniaturise electronic devices further. Of course, there is a huge cost saving in miniaturisation. Fewer materials are used, which is also good for the environment. One of the strong messages that I want to put across is that environmental savings could be made if nanotechnology is given investment.
The new technology is already having, and will continue to have, a major impact on electronics, on the IT industry and on medical techniques in particular. It is expected to render some of our traditional production methods obsolete, which is why we refer to it as a new industrial revolution. Britain, including Bolton, has always been at the forefront of industrial revolutions, and it is important that the Government invest in this one, otherwise we will be left behind. Our competitors are already ahead of us in this rapid race.
In the 1980s, British scientists held the lead in nanotechnology research, but the Government of the day failed to stimulate its potential. I do not blame them

447WH
for that; I blame the universities and particularly industry for not being stimulated by the money that the Government made available in the 1980s through, for example, the LINK nanotechnology programme, which they set up to stimulate industrial interest. There has been a lack of sustained investment since, although support for nanotechnology continued to be given by the research councils and through the basic technology programme and SMART. Sadly, most universities are failing to see the potential, as is most of British industry with the exception of Unilever, QinetiQ, which has set up QinetiQ Nanomaterials Ltd., and a few others.
In 2001, the Minister for Science and Innovation, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, commissioned the Taylor report, which John Taylor presented to the Government in June 2002. That resulted in the announcement by the Department of Trade and Industry of the £90 million investment over six years to which the Committee Chairman has already referred. It also established the DTI's micro and nanotechnology manufacturing initiative. Industry applicants for DTI funding are expected to provide match funding. If industry takes enough interest, that should lever in another £90 million. bringing the total available to £180 million. Apart from the DTI, other Departments, with the possible exception of the Ministry of Defence, unfortunately do not yet appear to have realised the significant potential for developments in nanotechnology. They include state Departments that, like the MOD, could benefit from the technology, such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and, in particular, the Department of Health.
Fortunately, the Government agree with our recommendation that
"the Government Chief Scientific Adviser liaises with the MNT Network and relevant Government departments to encourage the commitment of resources from departments its to potentially useful nanotechnology research, as appropriate."
The Taylor report recommended that one or two nanofabrication units should be set up to stimulate the technology. The Select Committee does not believe that that scale of investment is adequate to enable Britain to compete in the world growth of interest in the subject. I hope that the comprehensive spending review will soon be announced and that it will change the current state of affairs significantly.
The DTI seems to have interpreted the Taylor report's recommendation to crate at least two nanotechnology fabrication centres as meaning greenfield, new-build options However, the recommendation was based on the idea of expanding existing facilities, taking into account—and this is important—a geographical spread. Not everything should be in the golden triangle of the south.
Excellent facilities are already being developed jointly by Imperial college and University college London, in London and at Cambridge. The Rutherford Appleton laboratory near Oxford already has world-class facilities that could be developed. Such developments, if expanded, would allow British nanotechnologists to compete with other world-class centres, such as Minatec at Grenoble and IMEC in Belgium. Germany has developed six nanotechnology competence centres. If Britain does not develop world-class centres soon, with a critical mass that can compete in a world market, the brain drain for nanotechnologists will accelerate.
448WH
The Government commissioned the Institute of Nanotechnology to carry out an industrial survey of companies interested in the development of nanotechnology—ironically, three months after the Taylor report was published. The institute had already made the picture clear in its report "Nanotechnology in the UK", published in 2001.
The Government are using the regional development agencies to channel research and development moneys into the science base in all our regions. In particular, an extra £180 million is being channelled into nanotechnology. The devolved Administrations will contribute another £20 million. It is expected that in the next few years Britain will invest well in excess of £540 million as a result of current initiatives.
Dr. Gibson: Will my hon. Friend say something about an issue that I know he is concerned about—the closure of chemistry and physics departments? Nanotechnology depends on good, sound physics and chemistry in universities, so are we doing enough to develop undergraduates in those fields, under the umbrella of nanotechnology? Would that not be a winner as a way of attracting young people from school into the study of chemistry, physics and related subjects at university? Without chemistry, nanotechnology cannot move forward.
Dr. Iddon: My hon. Friend has hit on a good point, which I shall shortly develop. He is right to say that the development of nanotechnology will be inhibited if science departments continue to close.
I shall provide some comparisons: France has committed £500 million to this type of work over four years; Japan has committed £500 million for 2003–04 alone; the United States has committed £1 billion annually between 2003 and 2006; and South Korea has committed £80 million per year for the next 10 years. Witnesses examined by the Committee feel that the money committed by the UK Government to nanotechnology will not allow us even to catch up with those major competitors—they are well ahead of us. In writing the report, we attempted to alert the Government to that fact as well as others.
As I represent a north-west town, I am proud of the fact that the Northwest Development Agency was the first to establish a regional science council, under the able chairmanship of Sir Tom McKillop, the chief executive of Astra Zeneca. The north-west was followed closely by the north-east, and I am pleased that, according to the Chairman of the Committee, the eastern region is also setting up a science and technology council. However, RDAs have to date been slow to follow the example set by the north-west and north-east. There is therefore a question mark over the current ability of most other RDAs to deliver a science strategy in their regions. Do they have the in-house scientific expertise to achieve that? Perhaps the existing research councils provide a better mechanism for rapidly delivering a strategy to kick-start research and development in nanotechnology throughout the UK.
We are told that all the RDAs will have to have a science and industry council by December 2004. That is good news, but it will take time to build up their scientific capacity, and by then it will be too late in the

449WH
nanotechnology race. Lord Sainsbury of Turville said in his evidence to the Committee that the RDAs' role will be to forward projects to the national strategy advisory group, which has been set up to advise on the strategic direction of the network group of the MNT manufacturing initiative. The network director, Dr. Hugh Clare, was appointed only in January 2004.
As the Committee Chairman said, the Committee was critical of the way in which the organisation of the distribution and management of the money allocated to nanotechnology has been established. Much confusion has been created over who does what within the MNT network. In the Committee's opinion, the DTI is not taking a back seat, as it claimed in evidence to us, and the RDAs will perform a much greater role than recommending projects to the network. We recommended that the MNT network be given strengthened leadership and that its director be given real powers, so that he is not constantly looking over his shoulder.
The DTI has required match funding for its projects under the capital projects programme of the MNT network, which will last for three years. Three years is rather a short term. Those requirements are likely to lead to the funding of near-market project only, which will probably be in microtechnology rather than nanotechnology. Longer-term funding is required if nanotechnology projects are to be given a chance to develop properly. They cannot develop in a period of only three years.
Moreover, the requirement for match funding is unlikely to attract small and medium-sized enterprises, but those enterprises, some of which are spin-offs from universities, are the ones that are carrying out most of the cutting-edge research in the nanotechnology field. That, too, will inhibit progress.
The research councils also fund nanotechnology research. In order to undertake such research, institutes must be interdisciplinary, bringing together chemists, physicists, statisticians, biologists and biochemists, preferably all in the same building. An interdisciplinary research collaboration is led by the university of Cambridge, with core partners that include University college London and the university of Bristol. An IRC in bio-nanotechnology is led by the university of Oxford, with core partners that include the university of Glasgow and the Medical Research Council's National Institute of Medical Research. Funding of those two IRCs is worth £18 million over six years.
There is also an interdisciplinary nanotechnology research and technology centre at Newcastle university. In addition, a £33 million building is being built on the site of the university of Manchester institute of science and technology, which is shortly to combine with Manchester university. A few months ago I visited the Manchester interdisciplinary biocentre. The MIB—I have the brochure with me—is a fantastic £32 million development, which is bringing many different disciplines from those two universities into the same building. I am pleased to say that Professor Stan Roberts, who is a friend of mine and one of the country's leading organic chemists, now at Liverpool university, will lead the new venture. Interdisciplinary research to
450WH
remove the silos that separate chemistry, physics and biology, and to bring people together to interact in the same building, is precisely what we need in Britain.
Dr. Gibson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the research councils are not only interacting to look at the health and environmental impacts of the same technologies, but actively engaged in getting the message across to the public that the grey goo hypothesis is a load of old nonsense?
Dr. Iddon: The situation is getting better, but it is by no means perfect. The Committee has been critical of the "silo" effect of relationships among the existing research councils, although they are now attempting, perhaps a little too ate, to interact on a grander scale. We have made suggestions to them as to how things could be improved.
To follow on from my points about the interdisciplinary centres, six of nine projects in a recent round of funding under the research councils' basic technologies programme are in areas related to nanotechnology. The academic community has been slow to see the value of research in that area, but fortunately interest is beginning to grow. All the research councils fund facilities; for example, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council funds facilities at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory near Oxford. The central microstructures facility is a recognised centre of expertise for the top-down fabrication of devices on the nano scale. Unfortunately, however, to date the facility has failed to attract industrial-volume usage and its capacity is unfilled. There appears to be little co-ordination between the awards that the DTI makes for nanotechnology research through the MNT network, and the research councils' development work and awards. Again, to answer to my hon. Friend's question, that could be improved.
An estimated 1,500 researchers are involved in nanotechnology in the UK. Some are in the universities that I have already mentioned, but according to the Taylor report—I have already mentioned this, but I re-emphasise it—we lack a centre with the critical mass that can compete with some of the critical mass establishments in our competitor countries. One of the problems is that universities in the UK have not been fast enough in establishing the interdisciplinary centres that nanotechnology requires; they are coming, but slowly. The research assessment exercise has not helped, because it has not taken full cognisance of interdisciplinary work. However, I understand that an attempt is being made to take that criticism into account in the new round of research assessment exercises.
Only 10 universities in this country offer courses with "nanotechnology" in the title, four of which are at undergraduate level only. One of the barriers to expansion of R and D in nanotechnology is the lack of interested and trained researchers. If we do not have them, even down at the technician level, we will not make progress. I hope that the Government will pay some attention to that point, too.
The European framework programmes also support nanotechnology research. Some €17.5 billion, to which the UK contributes—I apologise for changing the

451WH
currency—£110 million, is available under the sixth programme, which includes €1.3 billion to target nanotechnology materials and production technologies. The problem is that although that extra money is available for research into nanotechnology, the barrier to applying for that money is so bureaucratic that British academics have been switched off. We need to get the message across to Strasbourg and Brussels that the applications system must be streamlined. Our scientists do not have time to sit for weeks on end telephoning those international collaborations, on top of which they have to write grant applications. I have done it; it takes a lot of time, and it is extremely frustrating when one gets a negative answer.
Professor Sir Harry Kroto, a Nobel laureate in chemistry, said in evidence to the Committee:
"If you take my viewpoint that anyone who looks at things in terms of atoms and molecules actually is doing nanotechnology then the subject is 200 years old, it goes back to Dalton".
Indeed, when I was lecturing in chemistry at the university of Salford I was teaching nanotechnology, but I did not realise it. What was I doing? I was teaching that nature uses templates such as RNA and DNA to build molecules; assembling smaller molecules on those templates by molecular or atomic assembly causes them to form physical bonds or, more especially, chemical bonds.
From RNA we can spin off proteins. In biochemical systems, that is done by molecular assembly. Large, naturally occurring molecules made in that way are so large that they do not exist as long, linear molecules. The ionic interactions present—charges interacting with one another across the length of the molecule—cause those molecules to wind and bind, and roll up like balls of wool. That is what proteins do when they develop a tertiary structure. They are fragile structures, however, and can be easily destroyed. When boiling an egg, we can cause a water soluble tertiary-structured protein to precipitate. As a result, the egg becomes opaque—and it is time to eat it.
Dr. Gibson: How long does it take to boil an egg to achieve that effect?
Dr. Iddon: I would have to carry out an experiment. It depends whether it is a hen's egg, a duck's egg or some other kind of egg.
Eye cataracts are caused by the precipitation of protein as a result of age, and they are worse for those who spend a lot of time in sunlight That, too, is caused by the unravelling of complex tertiary structures. Little balls of protein in the eye unravel and precipitate, because their tertiary structure is water-soluble. We then lose our sight. Fortunately the problem can be corrected.
A recognition of how those naturally occurring molecules are put together—we should also know how they function—has stimulated chemists for decades to synthesise complex molecules that perform various functions. At the molecular level, such molecules can emulate various engineering devices. I used to have a research interest in that aspect. Chemists are interested in building template molecules that, like RNA, have the
452WH
power to bring individual atoms and molecules together, attract them to the sites on the template and then cause those simple molecules to link together. It is now being done. A professor at the university of Sheffield greatly stimulated my interest in molecular assembly. With synthetic molecules, we are trying to build larger molecules in exactly the same way as nature. However, we have to find out how nature does it and how the molecules function before we can replicate it in the laboratory. That is nanotechnology.
Molecules are now being built that can emulate switches in electrical circuits. That technology can even be used in turnstiles—the gates that let us into the football ground. Molecules can be made to spin when a little pressure is put on them. For decades, chemists have been thinking about mechanical devices and trying to replicate them at molecular level. Those devices, and the fantastic world of electrically conducting organic polymers, will miniaturise electronic devices in the future. We will probably still not be able to find our mobile telephones—I sometimes have to ring mine from the land line to discover where I have left it—as these miniaturised electronic devices may be so small that they can fit into the ear, and that will make them even harder to find when they are mislaid. It is important that we invest in this fascinating field of research, which is opening up a new industrial revolution.
Richard Freyman gave a lecture entitled "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom" to the American Physical Society as long ago as 1959, in which he described the possibility of constructing minute machines and circuits atom by atom, molecule by molecule. I do not think Richard Freyman ever realised that today we would be doing that in nanotechnology.
I want to finish by speaking about health risks, which have not been mentioned before and are important. Whenever a new technology comes along the science fiction writers, and some journalists—with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), who was a journalist—get in on the act. Although the idea of nanobots or nano-robots creating grey goo that puts all human life at risk, an idea emanating from the work of futurologist Eric Drexler at MIT, is far-fetched, the potential for harm should not be ignored. We should remember the precautionary principle, but that should not prevent our being brave and trying things out to see what happens.
It is the same with the development of all new technologies, not just nanotechnology. We need to study the impact of nano-particles on human health and on the environment; fortunately, the Health and Safety Executive is already monitoring that field and investing in it. The public should be kept informed about the new developments so that the public debate does not get out of hand, as it has in the development of other technologies, such as genetically modified organisms.
Nano-particles are so small that they can readily penetrate tissues such as the epithelium that lines the lungs. They can evade man-made filters and natural filters within the body. In addition, they have a fantastic surface area relative to the mass of the material, which may give them unexpected properties and might lead to a health risk; we just do not know.
I welcome the significant report, commissioned by Greenpeace, into the potential dangers of nanotechnology, which recognised that there are

453WH
potential benefits as well as risks with this new technology. I am pleased that the green organisations are beginning to balance risks and benefits; they have seen only risks in the past, but they should also regard the benefits as important.
A major problem for knowledge transfer in the UK is that although Government sources will fund projects to the tune of about £250,000, venture capital companies in the UK, which are risk averse, will start funding only at the £1 million to £2 million level. That funding gap is a huge problem in this country, preventing the development of many new and exciting technologies such as nanotechnology. The venture capital companies deny that there is a funding gap and put the lack of knowledge transfer between the universities and the spin-out companies down to a shortage of propositions being put to them. I do not believe that, and I am sure that my colleagues on the Committee find it hard to believe, too. Fortunately, the Government, through the Treasury, have recognised the difficulty and are beginning, perhaps a little too late, to put programmes in place to deal with that important funding gap, which is preventing the transfer of knowledge into the market in this country.
The RDAs, too, have venture capital funds, which total £270 million. They are used to invest in SMEs, which are supported by a further £80 million of direct Government money. Again, however, investment is restricted to £250,000, and although there is admittedly the possibility of another £250,000 after six months' proof of concept, there is still a funding gap. The report recommends that the Government address the problem with the investment programme with a little more haste so that high-tech companies can bring products to market.
Investment by larger companies in all sectors increased by only 11 per cent. between 1995 and 2001—well below the figures for SMEs and our international competitors. Large organisations in the UK and other countries are no longer prepared to take the initial risk and have begun relying on SMEs to do so. As a result, many SMEs go out of business, while those that are successful are soon bought out, and their products bought up, by larger companies. That is how business has begun to operate in this high-tech area.
To conclude, I hope that reports such as that of the Committee and the one recently published by the Royal Society will allow us to make nanotechnology the important focus that it needs to be in Britain's technological development. We want Britain to regain the position that it had in the 1980s and at the beginning of this century so that it can take nanotechnology further and become one of the main countries in the world with an interest in the subject.
3.32 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate. I am a member of the Science and Technology Committee, although I am speaking in a Front-Bench capacity today. I became a member of the Committee only after it started its inquiry, so I chose to take no part in its deliberations on the subject.
454WH
I certainly find being a member of the Committee enjoyable, and it is a pleasure to follow the two learned doctors who have already spoken—the hon. Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). I am always at pains to point out that I am only a medical doctor, not a proper doctor. Those of us on the Committee who are lay people or medical doctors learn a great deal from those with PhDs, and I have certainly learned a great deal more from the two contributions that we have had so far.
The Committee's decision to tackle the subject of nanotechnology demonstrates yet again that there is no subject of which it is afeared. It is currently carrying out a number of inquiries, which will lead to reports that are just as incisive and, where appropriate, as acerbic as the one before us.
The Committee's key function, which it performs in a constructive, cross-party way, on the basis of its deliberations on the evidence that it receives, is probably to point out where it believes the Government have gone wrong, and that is just what it has done in the present report. I want briefly to reflect on what we have heard today and to raise a few of the issues that I gleaned from reading the report and the Government's response.
Normally when I am asked to speak from the Front Bench, I look to see what the existing Liberal Democrat policy is. We have lot s of policy on all sorts of things, but when it came to nanotechnology, the policy unit was stumped for the first time. I am therefore free to say what I wish—
The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): That never stopped the hon. Gentleman before.
Dr. Harris: Indeed I accept that suggestion entirely in the spirit in which it was made.
Paul Farrelly: In that case, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Liberal Democrat policy on nanotechnology is probably clearer than it is on any other policy issue?
Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that the policy that I am going to announce will indeed be clear. I say to the hon. Member for Norwich, North that at least I will be in a position to support my party's policy. That is something that I know he will be keen to do for his own party's policy when given the chance.
In his typical style, our esteemed Chairman clearly set out the key issues that the report addresses. First, he was right to lead with the need to ensure that there is public confidence in technology, to puncture the myth that has been built around so called grey goo and—unless there is a clear and present danger, scientific consensus or evidence for stuff based mainly on science fiction—to concentrate on the benefits. Otherwise we risk repeating the mistakes that have been made surrounding other technologies.
We are grateful to the Chairman for giving us the history of nanotechnology. It was very helpful of him to set out the contrasts between this country's record and those of our competitors in Europe and throughout the world. Now that we are, as the Government keep reminding us, the fourth largest economy in the world, it would be of concern if we were to fall significantly behind our competitors, such as Germany, in that field.

455WH
A report from the United States by Robert Service in the Financial Times on 18 June talked about the experience of such technology in the United States. It stated:
"In just five years, nanotechnology has catapulted from being a specialty of a few physicists and chemists into a worldwide scientific and industrial enterprise. Word-wide, government-funded nano research has grown seven-fold, from less than $500m in 1997 to more than $3.5bn in 2004.
The March/April issue of Small Times a US-based nanotech industry magazine, noted that venture capital funding in the nano area rose from virtually nothing in 1997 to $300m in 2003, accounting for more than 5 per cent. of all VC funds distributed in the US. The list of big businesses pursuing nano research includes General Electric, Lucent, Philips, Matsushita, Intel, Advanced Microdevices and Merck."
The report also stated that
"according to US Government estimates, the nanotech economy will be worth $1,000 billion by 2012."
This is a global economy, and even if it were not, where the US goes we always follow. The key thing is that we do not follow so far behind that our economy loses the ability to benefit and we suffer from the brain drain that has already been mentioned. The US is not far to go for UK scientists to pursue their careers, and our competitor countries in Europe are certainly not far away.
In an intervention, the hon. Member for Norwich, North made a point about chemistry and physics departments closing. His point was reiterated at the excellent Royal Society of Chemistry parliamentary links day, co-hosted by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), when the Nobel prize-winning chemist, Harry Kroto, argued very strongly that the closure of the chemistry department at Swansea university was a destructive decision. The reason given by the vice chancellor—that chemistry students are simply too expensive to teach—was a shocking admission because it might apply to many science departments throughout the country. I hope that, although the matter is not in the Minister's portfolio, she can give some reassurance.
Dr. Iddon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the council and senate of University college Swansea are closing down a chemistry department that has won accolades? It is a world centre of excellence in mass spectrometry, and Professor Keith Smith, a friend of mine who is head of department there, has won awards for green chemistry—something for which there is a great need. York and Swansea, and perhaps one or two others, are the only universities investing in green chemistry and we are about to see one of their departments closed down.
Dr. Harris: I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I should add that it was not a case of the department's failing to recruit students: the number of applications was up, and needs to be if we are to have enough chemistry graduates at a time when people are likely to be deterred from working in research because of the prospect of postgraduate debt. It is vital that we keep open for students the option of studying chemistry in their home cities, where their costs will be lower.
The hon. Gentleman is a great advocate of all things Bolton, and of all things scientific, as he proved with his advocacy of the innovation centre to which he referred.
456WH
He gave a very helpful explanation of some of the applications of nanotechnology, such as scanning microscopes, whether electron, probe or tunnelling. He also made the important point that we cannot rely on improvements, developments and innovations in nanotechnology in this country simply evolving from microtechnology in time for us to keep up.
Yes, I am sure that there will be low-level spin-offs from investment in microtechnology, but the report is very clear about our need for a separate strategy or approach to fast-track the funding for nanotechnology, so that we do not rely on the intervention from microtechnology, which will be far too slow. The report is also clear, as have been the contributions that we have heard so far, that there is a place for match-funded projects and schemes where the DTI and the research councils might offer money if such match funding were available. However, in growth areas such as this, where long-termism is needed, we cannot rely on the willingness of British industry—which has notoriously not been long-term enough—to provide the necessary match funding.
The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East rightly pointed out that the Taylor report advocated at least two centres for nanotechnology, and, as the MP for Oxford, West and Abingdon, I remember that the centralisation of the synchrotron project in Oxfordshire was seen as damaging to the science base in the north-west, which has universities with very good science departments that need to be encouraged. The point is made in the Taylor report that a geographical spread of such centres is important. That is why at least two are required. I hope that the Minister can give us some encouragement in that regard.
The hon. Gentleman also reminded us that it is vital that we do not fall behind our competitors. If South Korea is investing the equivalent of £80 million a year for 10 years, it knows something that the UK does not. It is incumbent on our Government, through the DTI, to ensure that we do not make the mistake that we have made in respect of other technologies.
I turn to what Prince Charles said about grey goo. I have heard it rumoured that there are rules about what we can say in Parliament about the heir to the throne, so I seek your advice, Mr. Caton, if I stray. I shall quote mainly from press coverage of what he said. He was described in The Guardian of 23 December 2003 as
"a natural advocate of the precautionary 'if in doubt, don't' approach to development."
His message was that we ought to be careful about this technology. If there is no evidence to support that, it is entirely the wrong message to send out. The same article describes how Prince Charles
"wrote a letter to the Royal Society raising the spectre of the 'grey goo' disaster scenario of nanotechnology, where mini machines self-replicate and take over the world, which had been the basis for Michael Crichton's thriller, Prey."
Dr. Phil Moriarty, reader in experimental physics at Nottingham university, is quoted as saying:
"The notion of grey goo was first raised"—
as we have heard in this debate—
"by Eric Drexler back in the 80s, but we're nowhere near having the ability to make these nano-machines. They still belong in the realms of science fiction.

457WH
There is a genuine debate to be had about the future of nanotechnology, but grey goo isn't it…It has to be said that very few scientists working in nanotechnology take the prince seriously."
We have a responsibility as politicians to respect the precautionary approach, but not to use the sort of language liable to undermine faith in new technologies if there is no clear evidence of harm. We must not undermine the prospect of investment in this country by our own industry and by firms with a choice of where to invest.
The article goes on to quote the hon. Member for Norwich, North. It states that
"Ian Gibson, who also serves on the House of Commons science and technology committee, unsurprisingly aligns himself with mainstream academia against the prince's intellectual dabblings".
He is quoted as saying:
"At best the jury is out on much of what he says, and at worse he has done science a significant disservice. He should either shut up about things he doesn't understand or sign up for a science course at one of our elite universities. If he'll pay the top-up fees."
I hope that Hansard, if not The Guardian, is read in the appropriate places, and that people with the advantage of using their position to get press coverage on issues other than architecture, where I do not claim to be able to contradict the prince, exercise appropriate judgment and responsibility.
I return to the report. Even though we have not had a huge number of contributions to the debate, there is not time to go through all the Government's responses to the recommendations, but I shall pick out three. It will be useful to hear what the Minister says in response to the comments that we have heard. Recommendation 1 partly underlines what we have heard about the danger of short-termism. It expresses concern about the absence of a successor programme to the LINK nanotechnology programme. In their response, the Government reiterate their evidence to the Committee:
"The LINK Nanotechnology Programme failed to attract sufficient industry interest to justify follow-on activity."
However, that is our point about new technology: if the Government are to show true foresight, we need them to be more long-term than industry. They should not withdraw a programme just because industry does not respond appropriately, because that proves the point that more Government support is needed to kick-start these initiatives. We do not have a good tradition in this country of sufficient long-termism in venture capital or industry R and D. The Chancellor has recognised that with some of the reviews that he has sought to initiate.
The Taylor report is referred to in the Committee's recommendations. Recommendation 2 is effectively the evidence that Taylor gave to the Committee, which is found in volume 2 of the report. That evidence is illuminating because it is unusual for someone in his position to speak so strongly in written evidence of his concerns about how his report was acted on. In his evidence he expressed disappointment—this is picked up in the report—that the strategy group had done little so far and that there was no road-mapping activity at the time when he sent his evidence; that the
"initial call to provide access to facilities has only just happened";
458WH
and that there was no website, apparently because of a lack of DTI resources. If the DTI is so hard-up that it cannot set up a website, that is of great concern. Sir John states that he is disappointed that non-academic access to some of the best facilities may be hampered by lack of funding from the less well-off RDAs and that future DTI funding for nanotechnology is uncertain, and so, therefore, is any planning for the programme.
Sir John quotes the Government as saying:
"'Nano will have to compete with other demands for technology support"',
and comments that although that is true,
"if DTI cannot make some level of allocation in principle for high risk exploration of applications for the next 5 years then it will be hard to get industry to do the same."
Those feelings are echoed by the Committee in its report, and I have heard members of the Committee of all parties, including the Conservatives, make the same point.
Is the Minister worried by the lack of nanotechnology-specific technology? Sir John Taylor reports that he can see that there is a chicken-and-egg problem for the DTI. However, neither he nor the Select Committee consider the DTI's response, alluded to by other hon. Members, of constantly initiating new reviews, to be right, and nor do I. Now is the time for action.
The Government' response to recommendation 5 is remarkable and a little bizarre. The recommendation states:
"The sums of money currently committed by Government and other agencies, spent in line with current strategy, will ensure that the UK continues to fall behind our major competitors. We recommend that in its ten year investment framework for science and innovation the Government gives a clear commitment to funding nanotechnology research and development at least over the next ten years at levels significantly in excess of current spending plans."
The Government response states that they
"think that decisions about the allocation of funds to specific areas of research and development should be taken by the Research Councils and the new Technology Strategy Board."
Surely the whole point of the strategy is to identify key areas for investment. It is disappointing that the Government answer is simply that that should be left to the strategy board and research councils, rather than forming part of a wider strategic approach.
I am a little confused by the Government responses to recommendations 6 and 7. Recommendation 6 points out:
"The impact of a decision to develop world class centres in the UK"—
and there is the implied alternative, "or not to do so"—
"on the number of top quality researchers remaining in or coming to the UK should not be underestimated."
The Government state that they agree with that observation. However, recommendation 7, following on from that, states:
"We are convinced that, had it wished to, the DTI had the necessary resources to sponsor at least one nanofabrication facility for the short term We believe that the UK's industrial and academic strength and its international competitiveness in nanotechnology would have been better served by the establishment of one. if not two, nanofabrication facilities to give

459WH
nanotechnology in the UK a distinctive focus. The rejection of this option appears to have been based more on regional political than economic factors."
The Government's response says:
"The Committee has rightly acknowledged the diversity of opportunity offered by nanotechnology. We agree and therefore do not think it right that the bulk of the available resources should be sunk in one centre."
Taken with the response to recommendation 6, does not that mean that the Government accept that there may well be an impact on the feared brain drain?
Concerns have already been raised about the fact that the £90 million does not appear to have been allocated, or the relevant decisions do not appear to have been made, on the basis of the report that was received or the strategy that was devised; the decision was announced before that. I hope that there is time for the Government to revisit the issue.
To finish where I started, there is a fear that this country will, for lack of a kick-start, again miss out on a technology or fall behind our major competitors. I pay tribute to the members of the Committee who took part in the inquiry. They have done this House and the country a service, and if the DTI is prepared even now to reconsider its position on some of the recommendations in the report they will have done the DTI a service, even if it does not recognise it. The Minister for Science and Innovation is widely respected by Members in this House, including myself. No one doubts his personal commitment, but I hope that the Minister who is here today can give us some encouragement about the policy in this area beyond what was, in parts, a disappointing response to this important report.
3.56 pm
Mr. James Arbuthnot: I cannot now remember whether, when I was Opposition Chief Whip, I was sad or sorry that the chairmanship of the Science and Technology Committee went to the Labour party instead of the Conservative party. However, experience has suggested ever since that we have been well served by the Chairman of the Committee and by the Committee in general. I pay tribute to the Chairman, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and to the way in which he introduced both the
debate and, as he so frequently does, stimulating and interesting topics—not only to the House, but to the country. We should express our gratitude to him, and to the Committee, because we have all learned a great deal from the report. It is fascinating, and a fascinating debate has followed it.
We have heard a number of interesting examples of the importance of nanotechnology from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). The Pilkington glass example that he gave is an important one. He also described how molecules are used to build up all sorts of different materials in a way that was fascinating for us. The people he lectured when he was in that business must have been extremely well served. I wonder whether his suggestion for having mobile telephones in the ears of Members of Parliament will be taken up by the Whips Office immediately. It would solve a number of the problems caused by the Chairman of the Committee.
Jacqui Smith: It will take more than that.
Mr. Arbuthnot: Indeed—probably a good deal more.
One of the issues that we have heard about is the limits on our understanding of what precisely is involved in nanotechnology. The hon. Member for Norwich, North suggested that much of that is down to His Royal Highness, Prince Charles. That was a bit unfair, because, as we have heard, Eric Drexler introduced the possibility of grey goo. Michael Crichton then took up the issue in a novel about a swarm of nanobots, so it is a little unfair to put too much blame on the Prince of Wales.
When the Prince of Wales took up the issue, more people noticed what had already been said. However, it was Eric Drexler who suggested that nanobots built from scratch atom by atom could replicate out of control using natural materials as building blocks. In less than a day, they would weigh a tonne. In less than two days, they would outweigh the earth—they would probably fall off, so that would not matter too much.
Eric Drexler recently said in a paper that a grey goo scenario is unlikely:
"All risk of accidental runaway replication can be avoided."
Of course it can, but only if we recognise the risks in the first place. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East was right to point to the need for the precautionary principle. So long as we recognise the risks, we can, and I am sure that we will, avoid them.
Our understanding of nanotechnology is very limited. The Committee Chairman referred to things the size of 10-9—yes, but 10-9 whats? The moment that we begin to talk about 10 to the minus, people begin to wonder quite what we are talking about. It gives us an idea of something very, very small, but it does not tell us that much. I recently asked what nanotechnology really means, and I was told this about a nanometre, which is, as we know, a small amount. Let us imagine that someone is shaving and they draw their hand down from the top of their ear to their chin. A nanometre is the amount by which the hair grows at the top of the ear in the time in which the hand goes from the top of the ear down to the chin. I understand that if someone clicks their fingers, that is 500 nanoseconds gone out of their life. We are talking about very small amounts. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East said that a human hair is 80,000 nanometres in diameter—my hair is getting significantly thinner than that—but once we get into the realm of 80,000 nanometres, we no longer understand it.
It is therefore not surprising that in a recent survey to find out what people think nanotechnology is all about, only 29 per cent. of the public claimed even to have heard of it. Only 19 per cent. would attempt a definition, and some of the definitions were wrong. It is not hugely surprising that the public do not necessarily know the answers to such questions. The worrying thing, though, is that that failure to understand is carried through to business. Too few companies in this country are aware of what nanotechnology can do, simply because it is a very difficult subject. It is well suited to the doctors who have spoken—I am afraid that I am not a doctor of any description—but it is not necessarily grasped by the companies that could take advantage of it. However, nanotechnology is an exceedingly important area in which we should be investing.
The British economy is one of those economies that is highly developed. Our unique selling point is our innovation, research, skills and inventiveness, which can

461WH
make a difference and really drive our economy. Many skills centres are being taken offshore, because other, less developed economies can pay their work force less than we need to. We must therefore concentrate on innovation, research, inventiveness, science and skills. That is one reason why we should be concentrating heavily on nanotechnology.
At the Lisbon summit in 2000—[Interruption.] I am not talking about football, and I shall finish speaking before this evening's match begins. At that summit, the European Council of Ministers said that the European Union was meant to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. Of course it should do so, but unfortunately we are going in the wrong direction. In 1998, Britain was fourth in the league of competitive countries; by 2003, we had fallen to 15th. We must reverse that if we are to be as competitive as was decided at Lisbon.
Innovation is important, not just for the good of our economy, but, in nanotechnology terms, for the good of mankind. There are advances in the technology that could be dramatically helpful in reducing illness, tackling viruses and helping crops, and in respect of all manner of different technologies that have been mentioned briefly in the debate.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) helpfully set out—and, I think, created—the Liberal Democrat policy on nanotechnology. He gave an outstanding analysis of the Government's response to the report and took us through areas in which it is not as constructive and helpful as is necessary.
The report complains of a general lack of focus by the Department of Trade and Industry in this area, and it is a pity that the Government's response fails to appreciate quite what is being said. The report mentions that the Taylor report required more focus, for example, on building nanotechnology facilities. The Government response to the second recommendation says:
"The emerging strategy widens the scope of Taylor"—
that is precisely the point; the initial scope of Taylor is widened to the extent that it loses all focus—
"without significantly departing from its core recommendations."
I am afraid that I disagree with that conclusion. The Chairman of the Committee said that the Government, in reporting some evidence that had been given to the Committee, had swatted us down.
This debate will not attract huge interest, which is a shame, because the subject is very important. However, the fact that it does not yet attract huge interest gives the Government the opportunity to respond more constructively to this important report than they did in their rather defensive response.
The report has been published and it is a shame that the Government's response was published only the day before the debate. If possible, it would have been preferable to give the scientific community the opportunity to consider the Government's response so that it could comment on it in some detail. [Interruption.] It says on the front of the response:
"Published on 23 June 2004".
The subject is not one that can just be picked up and commented on by the scientific community at the drop of a hat. It would therefore have been helpful if the
462WH
Government had responded more quickly. It may be that the trouble with the Department of Trade and Industry is that it has to respond to the Treasury, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has always said, "The Treasury works for the Russians." There is something in that. Nevertheless, if the Minister cannot find the money, I ask her seriously to find the focus that the response that she has issued to the report does not seem to provide.
This has been a very interesting debate indeed, and some important things have been said. The hon. Member for Norwich, North said that the RDAs were off beam, that the Government were muddled, that the DTI had handled things pretty badly, that the Government had swatted us down and that he had been heartened by not much of the response. The hon. Member for Bolton. South-East, who, as we heard, is a practitioner in nanotechnology and knows what he is talking about, spoke about the barriers regarding grants from Strasbourg being bureaucratic. He talked about the many concerns over our losing the battle with our competitors and said that we needed centres of excellence with critical mass.
The hon. Gentleman also discussed the Government's failure to appreciate the difference between microtechnology and nanotechnology, which is a key issue that has come up in this debate. Finally, he talked about our need to regain our previous position of pre-eminence. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) mentioned the DTI's timidity when getting close to market and the venture capital funding gap, while the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said that constant reviews were not the answer.
There is, however, the hope that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East expressed. He noted that the Committee's report is entitled "Too little too late?"—I wonder how much debate there was in the Committee about whether that question mark should be included—but he also said that there is still time to get things right. I hope the Minister reassures us that she will use that time and use it well.
4.12 pm
The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): I start by joining others in congratulating the Committee and its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), on such a well considered and valuable report on Government support for nanotechnology. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on securing time for this important debate, about which I hold the same views as the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). Although we have not had many contributions, they have been high-class contributions, which have added to my education, as well as that of other hon. Members, I am sure.
We accepted many of the recommendations in our response. Although not wanting to be over-defensive, I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman that we produced our response on 12 June, I believe, and the Committee published it on 23 June. We responded in a reasonably timely manner. I should like to update hon. Members on progress in the Government's support for nanotechnology. As I respond to the slight chiding from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, I hope that my response is both full and helpful.

463WH
Several hon. Members referred to my ministerial colleague, Lord Sainsbury, and rightly emphasised his championing of science and innovation more broadly and nanotechnology in particular. I believe that it was he who coined the joke that nanotechnology is going to be huge. That is the ongoing joke that is used to describe the advances that we can expect from the collection of science and technology called nanotechnology. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, I do not intend to be as brave as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and attempt a definition, but it is clear that the impact of nanotechnology on our economy will be dramatic. My hon. Friend spelled out, in a lively manner, the wide range of applications. However, it would be easier to list those sectors of the economy that nanotechnology will not affect than to attempt to catalogue all possible areas of use.
All are agreed that there is great potential. I agree with the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire that the significance is very great for our business and economy, so it is the job of us all to ensure that nanotechnology potential is recognised as fully as it can be for the sake of our economy and our future.
In a sense, it can be argued that nanotechnology does not really exist and that it is only a fashion label. As the Committee says, many advances now credited to nanotechnology would have been described in the not-so-distant past as advances in chemistry, physics, engineering, medicine or another more traditional subject. Indeed, a great deal of work at the nanoscale continues in those traditional disciplines without attracting the nanotechnology label.
However, one of the great changes is the massive growth in co-operation between traditional disciplines, or interdisciplinarity, which is fundamental to the way in which we need to develop the research, the application of that research and our support. The Government recognised that and, in 2001, set up the interdisciplinary research collaboration in nanotechnology, which the Committee investigated in the course of its inquiry and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East referred. I shall say more about that later.
The Committee, and hon. Members today, including the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), have criticised the DTI for not following up our original investment in nanotechnology, which we made in the 1980s and early 1990 through the LINK scheme. As we intimated in our evidence to the Committee, that is not the only support for nanotechnology that we have been able to offer. Much good work in nanotechnology has since been funded successfully under a range of schemes, including the SMART scheme for small and medium-sized enterprises, research council funding for academics, which is now up to £70 million a year, and several schemes for industry. We recognised, however, that nanotechnology was growing in stature as a subject in its own right. We also recognised that the lack of interest from industry could not be ignored. We understand the calls made by some hon. Members today for a proactive approach to be taken, which is why, in 2001, Lord Sainsbury asked the head of Research Councils UK, Dr. John Taylor, what would need to be done to help the UK position.
464WH
One of the main recommendations made by Dr. Taylor's team was for the creation of at least two nanofabrication facilities to build up UK capability in some of six key application areas. I shall give the Government's response to that recommendation in a moment. Other recommendations included the formation of an independent strategic body to direct the Government's work in this area, which we have now set up; the generation of a road map for nanotechnology, which is now under way; the creation of access portals, which are now up and running; and awareness raising and networking, which are also up and running. I reassure the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that we have the resources and the ability to create a website. I believe that we now have four websites dedicated to this area. Other recommendations included improving the supply of trained people through a training and education campaign, which I shall talk about later, and the promotion of international collaboration and inward investment.
In July 2003, Lord Sainsbury announced the DTI micro and nanotechnology manufacturing initiative and pledged £90 million of DTI support to begin to address those recommendations. The first tranche of that money is the £40 million that has been earmarked for the creation of a UK micro and nanotechnology network through support for new and existing fabrication facilities. The ideal model for the MNT network of facilities is world-class distributed manufacturing centres with a focus on strategic areas for the UK—such as nano-particles, nanobiotechnology, micro/nanometrology and packaging—with one or two strategically placed major centres having open access, catering for a wide range of techniques and technologies to provide incubators for companies, access to expertise and training facilities. They will be important for small and medium-sized enterprises.
There is a recognition of the need, which was identified by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, for a range of facilities, building on what exists, and for the ability to focus in one or two major centres on the type of activity that I described. I am sorry if my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North felt swatted down. I genuinely believe, as the Government have argued, that that is not a significant departure from the Taylor report, although it may be a different approach to arriving at an appropriate development of those facilities.
It is vital to get the structure of those major centres right, with good skill levels, appropriate equipment to meet the needs of industry, a strong industry product focus, an identified business plan and strong management. One of the reasons why we must be careful is that there are examples in the world where such centres have been built in haste without those attributes and have not been effectively utilised. For example, Chalmers university in Sweden has built a first-rate facility, but has experienced real difficulty in obtaining industrial utilisation of the resource.
We have had, to date, two calls for proposals for facilities to be funded by the £40 million, and are currently working with bidders to develop them into sustainable centres for the long term. That is an important point: we have not adopted a passive approach to the development of those expressions of interest. We have worked with those who have come

465WH
forward, to ensure that they are appropriate to help develop the business case. The second call has just closed and we have received 33 proposals. As they are now being assessed by independent experts, I cannot give great details about the bids at present. However, I can say that we are examining bids in the following technology areas: bio-nanotechnology; characterisation and metrology; fabrication of polymer and glass components; nanomaterials, including nanocomposites and nanostructured materials; nano-particles; silicon devices; micro-electronic and mechanical systems, and medical devices. There are at least two strong bids in each of those areas, which are based on the Taylor report's recommendations, and supported and developed by advice from the national strategic advisory group. We expect to have awarded most of the funding—around £30 million—for the successful centres by November. I believe, therefore, that we shall see some significant progress this year in developing those centres.
Paul Farrelly: We have heard that the Taylor report stressed that the regional dimension should be considered in terms of developing expertise, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said that, ideally, we would not wish to have any centres co-located on the golden triangle—Oxford, Cambridge and London—in order to facilitate that dimension. Can the Minister give an indication of where those centres might be located?
Jacqui Smith: Frankly, I could not give hon. Members a list of where the centres are to be located. Although it is not the pre-eminent criterion, the way in which we have addressed the matter—aiming for a larger number of centres, as well as one or two major centres—is enabling us to ensure that we do not have that concentration in a particular part of the country. Of course, the contribution of the regional development agencies, to which I shall refer later, is an important means of securing the ability to access nanotechnology expertise throughout the country. The recent joint report by the French academies of science and technology recommended building a network of local and regional centres, which sounds very similar to the structure that is being put in place in the UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East raised the development of the interdisciplinary research collaborations in nanotechnology, which are already up and running. We discussed with those involved how to take full advantage of previous Government investments, which are likely to lead to important developments. For example, the IRC involving the universities of Cambridge and Bristol and University college London, was created in 2002. The Research Council award of £9 million established a six-year programme of research into nanoscience and nanotechnology at the three universities, and has essentially funded more than 30 research projects in disparate areas. In addition, all three universities have secured further funding to establish new buildings and equipment dedicated to nanotechnology research. The total investment in those three facilities to date in
466WH
addition to the original IRC grant is in excess of £45 million. The combination of facilities and expertise is the largest in Europe.
The other arm of the DTI MNT initiative consists of £50 million for collaborative research and development to meet the current needs of industry to develop new ideas. Although I want to respond later to the points about the supply of finance, that goes some way towards recognising hon. Members' concerns about the need to develop basic research, and to ensure that it can be applied and brought through to industry. It will help to stimulate demand for the fabrication facilities that we are helping to create.
We expect to be able to announce the outcome of the first call by the end of July. Some 148 outline proposals worth £169 million and involving 400 separate organisations have been assessed, and 62 seeking about £34 million of public funds have been invited to submit full proposals. We expect to support around 30 projects with the £15 million that we have made available for this call. As hon. Members said, that shows a strong demand from industry and to respond to it, we will be bringing forward the next two calls ahead of schedule to meet that demand. While the first call was open to all the areas identified in the Taylor report, future calls will be more directed by the national strategic advisory group and the network director, following the establishment of the MNT network.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North repeated the Committee's criticism about whether the money came before the strategy. It is a difficult issue, but my hon. Friend might also rightly have criticised us had we been slow in finding the money and asking for expressions of interest. It is important to note that we will now ensure that the strategic direction offered by the group and by the director will help to inform us in respect of the second call of expressions of interest in the fund; it will ensure that the gaps are filled and that development goes ahead in a strategic way. The strategy is designed to capture the diversity of industrial interest and to channel it to create a critical mass of research and prototype development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, and, indeed, the Committee, raised the issue of the relative focus on microtechnology compared with nanotechnology. As we stated in our evidence, the Government expect the earliest commercial returns to come from the relatively mature area of microsystems. That is not the same thing as focusing our strategy on it. For example, I hope that hon. Members will find it reassuring that only 17 per cent. of the outlined proposals for the R and D programme were microsystems-based proposals, which does not support the concern that we have focused our strategy too much on microtechnology.
However, it is clear from our international comparisons that it is not possible to leapfrog microsystems technology and go straight to nanotechnology. Much of the fabrication machinery and characterisation processes are similar to both microsystems and nanotechnology fabrication. All the major centres abroad have at their heart a well developed set of facilities based around microsystem technology. If there is a criticism to be made of the UK,

467WH
it is that we have lagged considerably, so we must put right that key infrastructure deficiency if we are to exploit the potential of nanotechnology successfully.
Comment has been made in the Select Committee report and in this debate about the role and function of the network and its director. I am pleased that we have appointed network director, Dr. Hugh Clare, to lead the development of the MNT network. He will lead the work of the network in developing a road map for nanotechnology, benchmarking UK progress against international competition and promoting UK facilities abroad.
The Taylor report identified the need for international promotion and we already have in place the GlobalWatch service to facilitate that. We also have good contacts with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office science and technology network, which provides useful information about our international competitors and nanotechnology activities and helps with international technology missions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East raised the point about the role of the MNT director. In the light of the Committee's concern about that role, we will review his powers and responsibilities to guarantee that he has the authority to discharge his duty to ensure an MNT capability in the UK that stands up well to international comparison.
Several hon. Members also raised the issue of the EU framework programme and, more broadly in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, the benefits of the European emphasis on research and development. I agree with him. Although the Government are arguing strongly for a prudent approach to future EU spending, research and development, and in particular the framework programme, is one area where we can see value added and where we do see the benefit of European spending and increased UK contributions. It will also be important in helping us to meet the Lisbon objectives that the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire outlined.
The Committee rightly recommends that the network director should take a proactive role to promote the opportunities under the EU framework programme. I quite agree. It is one thing to have the framework in place; it is another to ensure that our industry and researchers get access to that money. We are on track to take part in projects with a net worth to UK participants of around 14 per cent. of the budget—roughly £140 million. As we contribute 11 per cent. of the budget, we have been successful in obtaining a fair return.
Competition for those projects is increasing, however, and we cannot be complacent. That is why we have included relevant and useful material in all of our public briefings for potential applicants to the MNT initiative and established web links to the main UK contact point for the nanotechnology, materials and production priority area of framework programme 6, which is run by the National Physical Laboratory for the Department of Trade and Industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East made some important points about ensuring that the programme is accessible. In fact, the FP6 nano programme is learning from the way in which the DTI
468WH
runs its R and D programme and will be adopting some of our techniques, including online application, fast decisions on outline proposals and a short outline proposal format to minimise wasted effort. That came about because we play an active role on the management committee of the FP6 nano programme.
The Committee expressed its reservations about the role of the RDAs and their counterparts in the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is worth putting on record that from the outset, those bodies saw significant advantages in working together and with central Government to ensure that regional and national agendas were properly aligned and did not work against each other. If they had stuck to a rigid role, only looking for regional advantage, we could all have wasted a great deal of time, effort and money in unnecessary competitive processes.
Those bodies have substantial funds at their disposal to invest in nanotechnology and they have already been used to create facilities. One NorthEast has supported INEX in Newcastle, Invest Northern Ireland has supported Nanotech Northern Ireland in Belfast, and Scottish Enterprise is supporting the Kelvin Nanotechnology centre in Glasgow. To respond to some of the concerns that hon. Members have raised, no one pretends that those involved have all the necessary skills at present; indeed, they would be supermen and superwomen if they did. However, it is clear which areas—for example, technical expertise in nanotechnology—need improvement, and co-operation will help to fill some of the gaps.
As hon. Members have said, the RDAs' development of science and industry councils by the end of 2004 will be important. It will allow them to contribute more broadly to ensuring that our science base benefits our businesses in the way that the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire identified.
Dr. Gibson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the money for nanotechnology in the regions was ring-fenced? If so, was it monitored to ensure that it was spent on nanotechnology?
Jacqui Smith: The answer, I think, is that it was not ring-fenced—not least because RDAs rightly argued for the ability to focus on priorities. However, as regards the science and industry councils, it is clear that the RDAs are tasked with doing more to enable innovation.
The RDAs and their counterparts elsewhere are fully committed to working within a national strategy and in partnership to ensure that we have a nationally coherent MNT network that serves regional and national needs, and acts as a clear focal point for international collaboration. In fact, they have recognised that the prize to be gained is not necessarily the location of any given centre, but easy access to a national network for companies in their regions.
Paul Farrelly: I was grateful to hear the important new information about the 33 bids and the progress on the two manufacturing centres. However, I share many of the concerns about the RDAs—not only because we might spread the jam too thinly. I have a lot of experience of the RDA in my region and I am not often

469WH
complimentary about how it reacts to things. My concern is that the principal reaction of many RDAs will be to say, "We must be seen to be doing something." They will commission reports, which will include great chunks of the Taylor report and perhaps of the Government's response and of this debate. The consultants will charge for producing such reports, which will come at great expense and spawn more consultants' reports. At the end of the day, we shall have been of great benefit to the consultancy industry, but achieved the square nano root of precisely nothing at all—all at the cost of large amounts of public money.
Jacqui Smith: I disagree with my hon. Friend's overall interpretation of the RDA approach. Regional development agencies are new organisations and the development of their input into science and innovation is also relatively new. I agree that we need development, whether at national or regional level. We do not need more reports; we need delivery of both research and development, and facilities. That is what we are focusing on in partnership with RDAs.
Dr. Iddon: Does the Minister agree with the point that I tried to highlight that we need scientific capacity in the RDAs rather than leaving it to economists and business managers? We need scientists, with hands-on control of the money, to work in, not with, RDAs.
Jacqui Smith: Despite the fact that I am not a doctor but an economist, I agree with my hon. Friend. That is one area in which we understand that there is a need to develop technical expertise.
Another area that hon. Members have identified is that of skills, and the Committee recommends that the network director report back to the DTI, research councils and the Department for Education and Skills on the types of skills being demanded by industry. The director will be well placed to undertake that task. We need a clear picture of demand because, as the Committee heard in its evidence sessions, there are widely differing views of what is required. Large companies are looking for graduates with good degrees in the basic sciences and engineering disciplines, while small and medium-sized enterprises need more specific skills. Academics seem divided on the best way forward. The evidence that the network director will gather will be valuable to all.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North that chemistry, biology and physics courses should include nanotechnology modules. That would be an appropriate way forward. Once we have clear evidence of the need, we will work with education suppliers to ensure the provision of properly trained people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East raised the emerging issue of the international shortage of graduate-level technicians to operate advanced facilities. We will explore with MNT facilities, once they are established, how that crucial skills gap can be closed. In fact, the MNT director is already working with a university that wants to develop industry-facing degree courses to provide graduate operators of advanced nanofabrication equipment.
470WH
My hon. Friend has been championing the Bolton technical innovation centre and it certainly sounds impressive. In fact, this is the second time that I have heard him talk about it. It sounds like an innovative and important development, which is very much part of helping to ensure that young people have an understanding and interest that may be converted into academic study and further development. That is a good step forward.
There has been discussion about supply of capital or funding. Unsurprisingly, many people look to Government to provide funding at all stages of the innovation chain, up to and including equity investments. When dealing with the expenditure of public money, we must be clear where the market failure is. Where are the gaps that need filling? From the evidence supplied to the Committee by the capital supply sector—this is where I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East—there does not appear to be a shortage of available funds to justify any market failure. The main shortfall appears to be in the supply of sound business cases.
There is not a case for using public funds to support poor business cases. In fact, unwise investments of that type by Governments can have catastrophic effects, as demonstrated by the German biotech industry crash caused by the withdrawal of soft money support.
This is not to say that Government do not see a role for themselves, but the role needs to be focused where there is a market failure. The grant for R and D, for example, gives important cash injections to SMEs for prototype development and the regional venture capital funds also help to foster start-ups. We are also developing the UK high-technology fund—a fund of funds—that will work through venture capital companies, who will make investments in specifically technology-based companies throughout the UK. I do not dispute the fact that there are gaps, but we must clearly identify where they are and focus our funding on them.
All hon. Members talked about public awareness and public understanding—sometimes misunderstanding—of the nature of nanotechnology, and the need to develop the right regulatory framework for the development of this important technology. My ministerial colleague Lord Sainsbury should be proud that in June 2003 he commissioned the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering to carry out an independent study to ensure that we can benefit from the advances that nanotechnology promises with the right regulatory safeguards and protections in place. Our approach to that issue underlines the Government's desire to acknowledge uncertainties openly and to engage with the public and stakeholders in all areas of science and technology.
Sensationalist scenarios, such as fears about grey goo, are in the realms of science fiction, but we are aware that there are other concerns about releases into the environment, possible threats to health and the unknown properties of materials at the nanoscale. It is important that genuine public concerns about the technology are addressed and unfounded fears dispelled. Existing legislation and regulations already provide safeguards to protect people and the environment. The Health and Safety Executive, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency and the Medicines and

471WH
Healthcare products Regulatory Agency are the key bodies. The outcome of the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering study will be used to inform policy on what safeguards might be required over and above existing legislation and guidance. It is a forward-looking approach to ensure both that we invest time and knowledge now in considering the future implications, and that we can make the sort of developments in this technology that will benefit the economy and about which the public are confident. The study is the first of its kind internationally and has attracted attention from the United States and Japan. It is one area in which we are leading the way.
472WH
We have had a good debate. I recognise hon. Members' concerns about future funding and I hope I have explained how we have been and are addressing the funding issues in a way that is likely to be of most benefit in achieving the objective that all hon. Members share: to help us make the most of the technology's potential for people and for businesses and to ensure our place in the international economy.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Five o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Dee Estuary
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the environmental impact of dredging in the Dee estuary. [180219]

  Mr. Morley
  Dredging in the Dee estuary is regulated by the Environment Agency in Wales with additional consents being required from both the Welsh Assembly Government and the Department for Transport.

  As there is an English component to the conservation interests on the Dee, I would expect to be consulted regarding any decision to allow dredging to take place should it affect English interests.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks around the UK. [180221]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are a range of national and EU measures in place to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks in our waters. The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit has made far-reaching recommendations for new measures and we will be spending fully to these proposals by the end of the year.

  Wild Animals
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to simplify the legislation relating to the keeping of wild animals. [180222]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department will be publishing a consultation paper on 28 June setting out proposals for improvements to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, which regulates the keeping of dangerous wild animals by private individuals, and will also soon be publishing a draft Animal Welfare Bill.

  Housing
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is planning to take to mitigate the impact of building new homes upon underground aquifers.[180223]

  Mr. Morley
  Water companies have a duty to supply water to domestic customers. As part of this they develop 25 year water resource plans to meet future demands of water, including those arising from new housing development.
  1466W
  It is crucial that new housing and other developments incorporate water efficiency measures, and the Government encourage planners to consult with the Environment Agency and water companies at an early stage.

  Greyhounds
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many representations she has received this year on the welfare of racing greyhounds; and if she will make a statement.[180224]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I regret that the Department is unable to provide such detail because of the many different ways in which representations are made, including by letter, e mail, petitions and postcard campaigns.

  There has been a large number of representations on greyhounds this year, encouraged, no doubt, by a campaign run by a major animal welfare organisation.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people have been prosecuted under the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 with regard to greyhounds in each of the last 10 years. [179232]

  Paul Goggins
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to identify those prosecutions under the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 that relate to greyhounds because details of the circumstances of the offences are not collected centrally.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the implications of the Gershon Review for levels of staffing in her Department. [180225]

  Margaret Beckett
  The settlement for the 2004 Spending Review, including the outcome to the efficiency review, has not been finalised yet. Once it has been concluded, the potential impact on staff will be identified.

  Coastal Defence
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the priority score criteria used in assessing coastal defence schemes. [180227]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra funds projects based on a published priority score system which applies equally to all projects, coastal or otherwise. The score takes account of the number of people protected, benefits as compared to costs, and environmental protection and enhancement. Eligible projects which score at or above the announced threshold will be funded. The threshold score for projects to start in 2004–05 is 20.

  Single Farm Payment
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received on the proposed cross-compliance conditions for the single farm payment. [180228]
  1467W
  Margaret Beckett
  The deadline for responses to the consultation on proposed and possible measures for cross compliance ended on 20 June. We have received 451 presentations from a wide range of stakeholders and officials are now considering the responses.

  Aluminium Powder
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the trends have been since 1997 in respect of the concentration of aluminium powder in air. [179457]

  Alun Michael
  Defra monitors ambient aluminium concentrations at three locations: Chilton, Oxfordshire; Styrrup, Yorkshire; and Wraymires, Cumbria. The following table shows annual mean air concentrations from 1997 to 2002 (the latest year that data are available). Details of the monitoring data are available in reports published on Defra's Air Quality Archive at www.airquality.co.uk.

  Annual mean air concentration of aluminium (ng m-3)

  Chilton

  Styrrup

  Wraymires

  1997

  110

  145

  54

  1998

  92

  137

  58

  1999

  68

  110

  67

  2000

  100

  140

  49

  2001

  76

  110

  42

  2002

  82

  120

  40

  Beef Exports
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last met officials from the European Commission to discuss beef exports. [180226]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, meets Commissioner Byrne regularly at Agriculture Councils to discuss various issues, including beef exports. DEFRA officials also have regular meetings with officials from the Commission.

  Cetacean By-catch
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what conclusions she has drawn from this season's monitoring of cetacean by-catch. [179267]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have not yet received the report of this season's monitoring of cetacean by-catch. However, as soon as I receive it I shall give careful consideration to whether any further regulatory measures are necessary to reduce cetacean by-catch caused by interactions with fisheries.

  Cod Recovery Programme
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of multi-rig trawls on the cod recovery programme. [180220]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are concerned about the increased catching efficiency of multi-rig trawls. They have the potential to undermine restrictions on fishing effort in the cod recovery programme.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on payments for orchards under Common Agricultural Policy reform, with particular reference to the eligibility for payments of different types of orchards. [178200]

  Alun Michael
  Under the CAP reform agreement reached last year, the new Single Payment will not normally be payable on land under permanent crops, including orchard fruit. This rule applies throughout the European Community. The scope of a possible exception for traditional grazed orchards, in line with current provisions, is being explored with the European Commission.

  Entitlements to subsidy under the new scheme will be established in 2005 on the basis of eligible land declared in that year, which includes having the land at his disposal for at least a 10 month period. The start of this period may be any date from 1 October this year to 30 April next, at the grower's discretion.

  GM Crops
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer from the Minister for Public Health of 11 December 2003,Official Report, columns 596–7W, on GM crops, what (a) notice and (b) formal communication the Food Standards Agency gave to her Department of its intention to support the approval of the application of the use of Bt 11 GM maize in food at the EC Standing Committee for the food chain and animal health meeting on 8 December 2003. [179970]

  Mr. Morley
  The Food Standards Agency wrote on 30 October last year seeking the clearance from all relevant government departments of the UK's voting position on Bt 11 sweet maize at the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. Additionally my Department is kept informed of the progress of applications as they proceed through the Novel Foods regulatory process.

  Orchards
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the position will be under the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy of orchards which are returned to general agriculture. [177787]

  Alun Michael
  Entitlements to subsidy under the new Single Payment Scheme will be established in 2005 on the basis of eligible land declared in that year. The Single Payment will not normally be payable on land under permanent crops, including orchard fruit. This rule applies throughout the European Community. The scope of a possible exception for grazed orchards is being explored with the European Commission.

  A grower who decided that he wished to return land to general agriculture would need to do so before the beginning of the 10-month qualifying period in order to be eligible for the Single Payment. This period can start on any day from 1 October this year to 30 April next at the grower's discretion.
  1469W
  Claims to establish new entitlements in subsequent years will not generally be permitted. However, use of the national reserve to accommodate new entrants is one of the possibilities being considered in our current consultation exercise.

WALES

  Euro Task Force
  Mrs Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been spent by the Wales Euro Task Force on preparing Welsh firms for the introduction of the euro; how that money was spent; and what actions the funding facilitated. [178293]

  Mr. Touhig
  The National Assembly for Wales funded the Wales Euro Taskforce which was in existence until 30 June 2002 and then subsequently a consultant until October 2003. The total cost was £64,000.

  The Task Force remit was to disseminate information on the Euro, providing help for businesses in Wales. This work was taken forward in a number of ways including presentations, conferences, exhibitions, a telephone helpline with access to an expert panel, an information website and leaflet distribution.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many employees in his Department have(a) signed a formal opt out from and (b) re 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. [178369]

  Mr. Touhig
  Two members of staff have voluntarily opted out of this directive arid are therefore exempt from the Working Time Directive.

  The Wales Office has a duty to ensure the health and safety of its staff. Therefore no member of staff at the Wales Office is asked to work hours in excess of the Working Time Directive (an average of 48 hours a week over a 17-week period).

TREASURY

  Cigarette Duties
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Government earned in revenue from tobacco duty and VAT on cigarettes in financial years(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [180258]

  John Healey
  Tobacco duty revenue figures are published by HM Customs and Excise in the Tobacco Factsheet, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House and from Customs' website.

  Customs do not collect data on VAT from individual goods or services.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when a reply will be sent to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford in response to his letter of 11 March to the Inland Revenue concerning his constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Moss. [180315]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue replied to the hon. Member on 29 April 2004.

  Departmental Websites
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost of his Department's websites, including those of its agencies, was in the most recent year for which figures are available. [178790]

  Ruth Kelly
  The costs and traffic figures for each website operated by the agencies and Departments for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible, during the 2003–04 financial year, were as follows:

  Department/site address

  Direct costs (£)

  Visits

  Page impressions (million)

  HM Customs and Excise

  www.hmce.gov.uk

  1393,000

  3.7 million

  —

  www.uktradeinfo.com

  1285,000

  214,336

  1.05

  HM Treasury

  www.hm-treasury.gov.uk

  1197,000

  2.6 million

  41.4

  www.euro.gov.uk

  32,000

  660.000

  —

  www.isb.gov.uk

  262,785

  —

  Inland Revenue

  www.ir.gov.uk

  31.9 million

  9.9 million

  110.6

  Office for National Statistics

  www.statistics.gov.uk

  11.1 million

  7.14 million

  60.6 million

  National Savings and Investments

  www.nsandi.com

  1156,180

  5.5 million

  16.7

  Office of Government Commerce

  www.ogc.gov.uk

  226,000

  592,551

  —

  www.sds.ogc.gov.uk

  www.gps.ogc.gov.uk

  www.co.ogc.gov.uk

  www.supplyinggovernment.gov.uk

  https://www.epims.ogc.gov.uk

  www.ogc-top.co.uk

  OGC buying solution

  OGCbuying.solutions corporate

  499,999

  439,268

  —

  website

  Energy Website

  G-Cat

  S-Cat

  Portfolio Portal

  Web enabled 'Central Product Database' and e-commerce system

  Royal Mint

  www.royalmint.gov.uk

  193,000

  966,047

  7.2

  UK Debt Management Office

  www.dmo.gov.uk

  185,000

  384,533

  1.4

  www.pwlb.gov.uk

  www.crnd.gov.uk

  Valuation Office

  http://www.voa.gov.uk/

  142,000

  26,896

  2.4

  1Staff costs are included.

  2Costs include database development work for this joint Treasury-Cabinet Office website.

  3Of this 1.9 million, 1.4 million is a one off cost relating to the redesign of the Inland Revenue's website.

  Employment Levels
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of employment levels on the economy. [180333]

  Ruth Kelly
  The performance of the UK labour market over recent years has been strong by both international and historical standards. The UK has the highest employment rate among the G7 economies. Over 1.8 million new jobs have been created since 1997. High employment levels contribute to growth and prosperity.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the way statistics related to(a) cancer, (b) neurology, (c) ophthalmology, (d) nursing and (e) midwifery are recorded by the Office For National Statistics. [180202]

  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 Baron dated 24 June 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on what plans I have to change the way statistics related to (a) cancer, (b) neurology, (c) ophthalmology, (d) nursing and (e) midwifery are recorded by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). (180202)

  ONS maintains the National Cancer Registry, which collates information collected by the nine regional cancer registries in England. The way in which cancer data are collected, recorded and validated by regional registries is likely to change as the NHS National Programme for IT (NPfIT) develops. In the longer term changes will follow from the introduction in the NHS of the National Cancer Dataset.

  Statistics showing the numbers of people in employment in each occupation are available regularly from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), which is carried out by ONS. This separately identifies figures for opthalmic opticians, nurses and midwives. There are no plans to change the analysis of people in employment from the LFS, although it is planned that the LFS itself will be incorporated in the Continuous Population Survey in 2008. At a later date, it is likely that a new classification of occupations will be introduced.

  No other statistics on the topics listed in your question are recorded by ONS, and there are no immediate plans to change this.

  Smoking-related Illness
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent estimate he has made of the cost to the economy of smoking-related illnesses and fatalities. [180259]

  Mr. Boateng
  The White Paper Smoking Kills (1998) estimated the cost to the NHS of treating ill-health caused by smoking was £1.7 billion a year.

  Unemployment (Tamworth)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the long-term(a) adult and (b) youth unemployment rates were in Tamworth constituency in each of the last 10 years. [179968]
  1472W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who I have asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated 24 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployment. (179968)

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

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

  The table below shows JSA claimants claiming for over 12 months as a percentage of all claimants, for all ages and for those aged 18–24 years old in the Tamworth constituency. The figures are annual averages for each year since 1996. Comparable figures are not available for earlier years.

  People claiming JSA for 12 months or more, as percentage of all claimants

  Percentage

  All ages

  18 to 24 years

  1996

  29.5

  4.8

  1997

  24.1

  3.2

  1998

  21.5

  3.0

  1999

  20.9

  0.7

  2000

  20.9

  0.5

  2001

  17.7

  1—

  2002

  14.5

  1—

  2003

  10.0

  1—

  1Figure not shown to protect individuals' confidentiality

DEFENCE

  Databases
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the fields of the(a) Estates and Lands database and (b) his Department's Service personnel databases. [176382]

  Mr. Caplin
  Defence Estates (DE) controls and utilises numerous databases which encompass a wide range of information related to the day-to-day management of the land we own and use. These databases include the Defence Property Gazetteer Maintenance (which includes the disposal programme), E Terrier (which provides details of MOD ownership and legal titles), the MOD Sites Information System and the Parliamentary Business database. In some cases these comprise well over 100 individual fields.

  Excluding the three Services, which all have a multitude of individual databases, so far as the Service personnel databases are concerned, the armed forces Personnel Administration Agency alone has in excess of 300 individual databases, each one having numerous separate fields. The individual armed Services have many other databases.
  1473W
  I am therefore unable to provide the information requested as it is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [175670]

  Table A: UK Regular armed forces medically discharged for mental health disorders, 1997–2003

  1997–2003

  Mental health disorder grouping

  ICD-10 codes

  total

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  All mental health disorders

  F00–F99

  959

  122

  147

  101

  127

  156

  160

  146

  Mood/affective disorders, and mental and behavioural disorders associated with the puerperium, not elsewhere classified

  F30–39, F53

  314

  27

  53

  23

  44

  50

  58

  59

  Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders

  F40–F48

  448

  58

  60

  58

  57

  75

  74

  66

  Other mental health disorders

  F00–F29, F50–F52, F54–F99

  197

  37

  34

  20

  26

  31

  28

  21

  Centrally held figures show that during the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2003, 1,750 civilian staff have retired due to ill health. It is not recorded how many of this number retired due to mental health disorders.

  The figure is full-time equivalent, this is a measure of the size of the workforce that takes account of the fact that some people work part-time.

  Empty Houses
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how many empty houses his Department is responsible; and if he will make a statement. [179354]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 18 June 2004]: Defence Estates (the Ministry of Defence Agency responsible) is aware of 7,700 empty properties in mainland UK, as at 31 March 2004. Of those:
  over 900 are planned for disposal
  over 1,600 are held for future Service deployments
  some 550 are empty awaiting modernisation

  The remainder are available to let or are under offer to Service families. There may be a relatively small number of additional properties which are empty, for which information is not held centrally.

  Land Sales
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, if he decides to relocate HQ Land away from Wilton, the Crichel Down rules will apply to the sale of the site. [179477]

  Mr. Caplin
  It is the Ministry of Defence's normal policy to consider the application of the Crichel Down rules in all instances when disposing of surplus land. However, application depends on detailed analysis and it would be premature to say whether the rules would apply to the Wilton site.
  1474W
  Mr. Caplin
  In the seven year period 1997–2003, 959 Regular Service personnel were medically discharged from the United Kingdom Armed Forces due to a mental health disorder. The Defence Analytical Services Agency codes the specific conditions according to the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of diseases and health-related problems 10th revision (ICD-10). According to this system it is not possible to identify separately all anxiety, stress, and depressive conditions as there is considerable overlap between them.

  Medals (Arctic Convoys)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who and which Government offices were involved in the recent review of the award of medals to Arctic convoy veterans. [179543]

  Mr. Caplin
  The review was conducted by Defence Ministers, supported by officials. Other Government Departments were not involved, but reference was made to contemporary documents of the Inter-departmental Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals in Time of War.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the up-to-date position is on the award of medals to the Arctic convoy veterans. [179554]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 1 March 2004,Official Report, columns 595–96W to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).

  Military Vehicles
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military vehicle drivers have been stopped by the police for speeding on(a) the A303 and (b) the M3 in the past 12 months. [179480]

  Mr. Caplin
  No records are maintained to indicate whether any military vehicle drivers may have been stopped for speeding on the A303 or M3 in the last 12 months.

  MOD Sites
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many prospective purchasers have(a) made initial enquiries and (b) negotiated in respect of the Dean Hill site; when he expects to conclude a sale; and if he will make a statement. [179483]
  1475W
  Mr. Caplin
  Defence Estates has undertaken an expressions of interests campaign ahead of marketing the site. There were 175 initial inquiries, with 54 parties having expressed an interest in acquiring all or parts of the site.

  Our current aim is to market the site in spring 2005, subject to legal advice on whether the former owner (Crichel Down) rules apply.

  No negotiations have yet taken place, but discussions on conservation issues are in progress.

  RAF Boulmer
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the land occupied by RAF Boulmer other than for married quarters is(a) publicly owned and (b) rented; and whether any of it is governed by (i) lease conditions under which the landowner can require reinstatement to agricultural condition and (ii) other restrictions which if enforced would lead to a cut to public funds when the lease is surrendered. [169173]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: In total, RAF Boulmer comprises an area of some 59 ha, of which around 46 ha is Crown freehold and 13 ha is leased. The station is split into three separate areas: a main site, the old administrative site and an accommodation site.

  The main site is publicly owned. No restrictions apply. The old administrative site, which is also publicly owned, is in the process of disposal and the Ministry of Defence is committed to reinstate it to its original condition. The accommodation site, which includes the Search and Rescue Unit, is partially leased.

  Of this leased area, just over 4 ha could be left as existing or at the landlord's request be returned to original (agricultural) condition. The remainder has to be returned to original (agricultural) condition or compensation paid in lieu.

  It is too early to assess the precise impact on receipts, but this is only one of a number of factors which would be taken into account in taking decisions.

  UN Operations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what ongoing British involvement there will be in Iraq after the 30 June 2004 transfer of power. [174518]

  Mr. Hoon
  Following the assumption of authority by the Interim Iraqi Government on 30 June, British troops will contribute to the Multi National Force carrying out a range of tasks including the provision of security and building the Iraqi security forces. The detailed arrangements under which the Multi National Force will operate are set out in UN Security Council Resolution 1546 and the letters to the Security Council from Prime Minister Allawi and Secretary Powell.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Fire Brigades Union
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what part he has played in mediating a settlement between the Fire Brigades Union and the fire authorities. [179340]
  1476W
  Mr. Raynsford
  Following the May 2002 pay claim from the Fire Brigades Union, Ministers encouraged the two sides to reach a negotiated settlement. The June 2003 agreement which ended the firefighters dispute set out a clear path for pay improvement linked to modernisation of the Fire and Rescue Service subject to some further negotiations. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister hopes that the parties will recognise that a negotiated settlement is the only way forward.

  Housing
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many housing units were built in 2003–04 in the Pathfinder areas of Merseyside; and how many are expected to be built in 2004–05. [179729]

  Keith Hill
  No housing dwellings were completed in 2003–04 in the Sefton area of the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder. The forecast for 2004–05 is 52 housing dwellings. In Wirral, 42 dwellings were completed in 2003–04 and the forecast for 2004–05 is 105. Figures are not yet available for the Liverpool Pathfinder area in 2003–04, but the HMRI Delivery Plan forecasts that 1,301 dwellings will be provided over the period 2004–06.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local authorities in England have chosen(a) stock transfer, (b) Arms Length Management and (c) Private Finance Initiative. [180185]

  Keith Hill
  The information is as follows:

  Since 2001:

  (a) 35 local authorities have transferred some or all of their housing stock to Registered Social Landlords, with 29 others on stock transfer programmes that have not yet transferred their stock.

  (b) 33 local authorities have established one or more Arms Length Management Organisations, with 12 other authorities on programmes waiting to do so.

  (c) three local authorities have signed Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts for the management of their housing stock, with a further nine local authorities in the procurement stage.

  Included in the figures are 13 local authorities that have chosen two of the available solutions for part of their stock, and one local authority that has used all three programmes.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from local authorities in England seeking direct Government investment options to improve standards in their housing stock.[180187]

  Keith Hill
  Hammersmith and Fulham and Camden are the only local authorities who themselves have requested direct investment from the Government to meet the Decent Homes programme.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of empty homes in each local authority in England in the last year for which figures are available. [180193]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested has been made available in the Library of the House.
  1477W
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect of(a) large scale voluntary stock transfers of council housing and (b) Arms Length Management Organisations on the provision of low cost housing. [180037]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made no direct assessment since we do not expect the transfer of existing council housing to Registered Social Landlords (RSL) or its management by an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) in itself to directly affect the provision of low cost housing for key sector workers. Where a local authority receives a receipt from a housing transfer it may be used to contribute towards the provision of additional low cost housing.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what policy on investment in decent homes standards is followed by his Department for council homes where the tenants and residents have voted neither to transfer to a registered social landlord nor to establish an Arms Length Management Organisation. [180350]

  Keith Hill
  Stock Transfer, Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) and Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) are the only options available to local authorities and tenants to access any extra resources they need to deliver Decent Homes.

  Where tenants have voted against all these options following full tenant engagement in determining the option voted on, the Government will respect that decision, but no extra funding will be provided. The resources available for investment in Decent Homes will be those currently provided through Housing Subsidy, the Major Repairs Allowance, and what the local authority chooses to make available through the single capital pot and through receipts from any other income.

  India
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official visit to India. [180152]

  Yvette Cooper
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be visiting India later this month on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The visit is an early chance to meet Senior Members of the new Indian Government and to emphasise to them the importance of our strategic partnership with India.

  Planning (Fees)
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local authorities in England have introduced fees for pre-planning application consultation; and if he will make a statement. [179915]

  Keith Hill
  No central information is available on numbers of local authorities charging for pre-application advice. Councils may make such charges at the present time under their powers to charge for 1478W
  discretionary services in section 98 of the Local Government Act 2003. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently undertaking a review of the scope and level of planning fees and will be publishing a consultation document later in the summer.

  Playgrounds
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment his Department has made of the impact of European standards(a) BS EN 1176 and (b) BS EN 1177 on (i) the number of playgrounds in the UK and (ii) the cost of maintaining playgrounds by local authority. [179665]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  This department has made no assessment of the impact of European standards BS EN 1176 and BS EN 1177 on the number of playgrounds in the UK or on the cost of maintaining those playgrounds.

  Rental Property
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Department's current estimate is of the shortage of houses for affordable rent in each London borough; and if he will make a statement. [179642]

  Keith Hill
  Information on the shortage of affordable houses specifically for rent in London is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. At the end of March 2004, there were 59,000 households in temporary accommodation. Projections for London's population suggest an increase of 336,000 households by 2016. The Mayor's London Plan sets an overall baseline target for the capital of 23,000 new homes per annum (in all sectors and from all sources) and an aspirational target of 30,000 homes per annum. The baseline target is broken down in the London Plan by London borough. The London Plan also has a target that 50 per cent. of new homes should be affordable.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) council and (b) housing association new dwellings for rent he expects to be completed in the current year in each London borough; and what his expectation is for 2005–06. [179643]

  Keith Hill
  The Housing Corporation estimate the following forecasted rent completions by housing associations in London local authorities in 2004–05 and 2005–06:

  Forecasted housing association rent completions

  Local authority

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Barking and Dagenham

  47

  308

  Barnet

  50

  357

  Bexley

  12

  147

  Brent

  185

  628

  Bromley

  119

  138

  Camden

  187

  189

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  Croydon

  199

  268

  Ealing

  214

  314

  Enfield

  217

  382

  Greenwich

  215

  301

  Hackney

  289

  514

  1479W

  Forecasted housing association rent completions

  Local authority

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  166

  283

  Haringey

  284

  429

  Harrow

  55

  76

  Havering

  87

  151

  Hillingdon

  118

  92

  Hounslow

  79

  247

  Islington

  205

  683

  Kensington and Chelsea

  45

  90

  Kingston Upon Thames

  170

  52

  Lambeth

  226

  621

  Lewisham

  495

  361

  Merton

  83

  133

  Newham

  256

  493

  Redbridge

  82

  103

  Richmond Upon Thames

  138

  68

  Southwark

  311

  459

  Sutton

  175

  206

  Tower Hamlets

  154

  800

  Waltham Forest

  83

  221

  Wandsworth

  102

  47

  Westminster

  132

  261

  In addition in their Housing Strategy Statistical Appendices returns last year, five London local authorities proposed additional affordable housing completions/acquisitions in 2004–05. These were:

  Local authority

  Proposed affordable housing completions/acquisition (2004–05)

  Croydon

  5

  Enfield

  2

  Hillingdon

  32

  Southwark

  100

  Wandsworth

  56

  These data cannot be broken down for local authority new dwelling completions for rent specifically. No data are held for 2005–06.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [178365]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has(a) 28 staff who have signed a formal opt out and (b) no staff that are exempt from, the Working Time Directive. Payroll records show that, in April 2004, 40 staff worked in excess of 48 hours in any given week. The Working Time Directive applies where an average of 48 hours a week has been exceeded over a period of 17 weeks.
  1480W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister produces quarterly reminders of the Working Time Regulations for staff and overtime statistics are monitored on a regular basis to ensure that staff are not consistently working in excess of 48 hours per week.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Darfur (Sudan)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what discussions(a) he, (b) members of his Department and (c) representatives of the UK Government in Khartoum have (i) initiated and (ii) had with (A) members and (B) representatives of the Sudanese Government concerning the facilitation of access to Darfur by non-governmental organisations; what specific complaints were raised during those discussions; and if he will make a statement.[179747]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the UN Under Secretary-General's statement of 14 June regarding the bureaucratic burden placed on relief agencies trying to reach Darfur in Western Sudan; and if he will make a statement; [179746]

  (3) how many complaints his Department has received from representatives of non-governmental organisations relating to access to Darfur in each of the last eight months; and if he will make a statement; [179748]

  (4) what assessment his Department has made of the Sudanese Government's policy of removing radio equipment from non-governmental organisations' and United Nations' vehicles seeking access to Darfur; and if he will make a statement. [179632]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is facing a humanitarian emergency in Darfur, where the provision of assistance is absolutely vital. In this context, hindrances to the delivery of humanitarian supplies are unacceptable. The UK has been working to facilitate humanitarian access to Darfur, and our Embassy in Khartoum is engaged on a daily basis with the Government of Sudan, although we are making progress, there is still more that needs to be done.

  I raised the question of issuing visas to Sudan with the Sudanese Foreign Minister in London on 11 May. He gave me a firm commitment that visas for humanitarian personnel working in Darfur would be issued within 48 hours. There has been a marked improvement as a result of this commitment. On 20 May, the Sudanese Government announced the change to a 48 hour notification system for travel to Darfur, replacing the previous requirement for a travel permit. This improvement has also allowed progress on the ground.

  I raised the question of humanitarian access with the First Vice President the Minister for Humanitarian Affairs, and the State Minister for Finance in Khartoum on 8 June, where I was given firm commitments that the Sudanese Government would fast-track customs

  1481W
  clearance for humanitarian goods within seven days, and that new international NGOs applying for registration to work in Darfur would be fast-tracked in 10 days. This has resulted in new international NGO registrations. They also agreed that medical supplies that were on an approved list did not need testing before being brought into Sudan. I raised with them the specific complaint from Medecins Sans Frontieres-Holland that 200MT of food and 30MT of medical supplies had been held in Port Sudan for three mouths. Both Ministers assured me that this would be released within days. This has now taken place.

  Following my visit, the British Ambassador has continued to raise on a regular basis the question of humanitarian access to Darfur, including through letters to the Minister for Humanitarian Affairs and the State Minister in the Ministry for Humanitarian Affairs highlighting specific instances of ongoing bureaucratic difficulties. These included outstanding applications for registration from new international NGOs, the need to give 72 hours notice for passengers on UN flights, the need for clarity about the requirements for testing medical and food supplies, the urgency of releasing radio and communications equipment from customs and the need to issue promptly visas for international health staff. We are calling on the Government of Sudan to consider suspending all regulations relating to humanitarian access to Darfur for a period of three months. The Higher Committee on Darfur will meet on 24 June to discuss humanitarian access where we will raise all the outstanding issues. In addition, I intend to speak to the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs this week.

  The UK Government has been in constant dialogue with UK NGOs working in Darfur since September 2003. DFID has held regular meetings with the Disasters and Emergency Committee in London on Darfur. In Khartoum, the Ambassador has taken the lead in establishing regular meetings with the Government of Sudan, NGOs and donors to discuss he question of access to Darfur. It would require disproportionate work to answer the question of how many complaints were received by NGOs in each of the last eight months.

  DFID has received reports that radios and communications equipments have been held in customs by the Sudanese authorities. Given the essential nature of this equipment for ensuring the safety and security of humanitarian personnel, this is unacceptable. It was raised in the letter from the British Ambassador to the State Minister for Humanitarian Affairs. I intend to follow up closely on the implementation of all the commitments given by the Government of Sudan about humanitarian access to Darfur and will continue to raise specific instances as appropriate.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what programmes are supported by his Department to expand and strengthen civil society in Afghanistan. [177118]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID is helping to expand and strengthen civil society in Afghanistan by supporting civil society's engagement in the political process. DFID supported the development of the new constitution in 1482W
  2003 (£500,000). This included an outreach programme to make the wider community aware of the purpose of the Constitution and providing a reasonable understanding of its key features. DFID are now funding Swiss Peace (£500,000) to provide civic education for the Afghan elections and supporting the development of an independent media through our contributions to the Global Conflict Prevention Pool.

  The UK is funding Action Aid (£157,680) to help increase both knowledge and awareness of the rights of women and women's participation in local governance in Afghanistan. Community level women's groups are being established and small grants made available to help build the resources and confidence of women to work together to seek solutions to common problems. These activities are being supplemented and supported by training and information sharing at the provincial level and a nationwide research project looking at the role of women in local governance in Afghanistan.

  DFID also funds Government led national development programmes, which are being facilitated by a range of local and international non-governmental organisations. An example is the National Solidarity Programme (£3 million in 2003–04 with additional funding planned), which is building the capacity of hundreds of village development councils across Afghanistan and providing the resources they need to identify and address their own development priorities.

  DFID also supports the British Agencies in Afghanistan Group (BAAG) here in the UK. This funding helps BAAG act as an effective umbrella group for non-governmental organisations, registered in the UK and working in Afghanistan and also facilitates information sharing and access to Whitehall Departments.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much(a) aid in kind and (b) monetary aid his Department has (i) pledged and (ii) delivered to (A) the Democratic Republic of the Congo and (B) the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1) in each year since 1997 and (2) in each month since November 2003; and if he will make a statement. [179751]

  Hilary Benn
  The following table shows what has been delivered to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), including as aid in kind and monetary aid, from 1997–98 to 2003–04 (latest, provisional figures).

  Until the installation of the Transitional National Government in July last year, most of our assistance had been directed towards meeting the immediate humanitarian needs in DRC, as the table shows. The nature of humanitarian assistance is such that DFID did not pledge an overall amount but delivered assistance as and when it was necessary. Our overall aid framework for DRC in 2003–04 was £23 million—of which over £20 million was delivered, including £3 million as monetary aid.

  DFID does not keep central monthly records of pledges or expenditures nor does it break down expenditure specifically by region within the Democratic Republic of Congo.
  1483W

  £000

  Financial year

  Monetary aid

  Technical co-operation

  Grants and other aid in kind

  Humanitarian assistance

  Total DFID expenditure

  1997–98

  —

  48

  6,056

  807

  6,911

  1998–99

  —

  63

  118

  370

  552

  1999–2000

  —

  49

  15

  1,257

  1,322

  2000–01

  —

  23

  38

  3.036

  3,096

  2001–02

  —

  188

  63

  5,307

  5,558

  2002–03

  —

  1,138

  83

  11,650

  12,871

  2003–04

  2,990

  3,878

  320

  12,946

  20,135

  Total

  2,990

  5,387

  6,693

  35.,373

  50,445

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what discussions(a) he and (b) members of his Department have had with representatives of non-governmental organisations concerning the humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo since he was made Secretary of State for International Development; what concerns were raised; and if he will make a statement; [179752]

  (2) what representations his Department has received from non-governmental organisations concerning access to the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and if he will make a statement; [179753]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the humanitarian implications of the decision by the Government of Rwanda to close its border to the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if he will make a statement; [179754]

  (4) what estimate his Department has made of the numbers of refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo in (a) Burundi, (b) Rwanda, (c) Uganda and (d) other countries; how these numbers have changed over the last six months; and if he will make a statement; [179755]

  (5) what assessment his Department has made of the humanitarian impact of the security situation in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo; how this assessment has changed over the last six months; and if he will make a statement;[179756]

  (6) what estimate his Department has made of the number of internally displaced people in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo; how this estimate has changed over the last six months; and if he will make a statement; [179757]

  (7) what plans his Department has (a) drawn up and (b) implemented to help overcome the humanitarian crisis in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if he will make a statement. [179758]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has regular discussions with the UN agencies and NGOs concerning the humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Last year, DFID's humanitarian spend was £13 million; this year, a similar amount is available.

  Following the recent reports of the humanitarian impact of the instability and fighting in Eastern DRC, DFID has sent a humanitarian assessment mission to Goma and Bukavu, which arrived on 22 June 2004. This mission intends to assess and respond to the growing humanitarian problem, working alongside our partner UN agencies and NGOs to assist the most vulnerable populations.
  1484W
  With NGOs and the UN only just getting access into the affected parts of Eastern DRC, there are no verifiable reports on the current numbers of internally displaced people or of refugees in neighbouring countries, or their present locations and requirements. The DFID humanitarian assessment mission hopes to determine both the scale of the problem, and how UK funds can best be used to alleviate this.

  I will write to the hon. Member shortly with further details.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on aid the UK is sending(a) unilaterally and (b) as part of the EU to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [179301]

  Hilary Benn
  For the financial year 2004–05, DFID has made available £34 million in UK bilateral assistance to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). In the financial year 2003–04, UK bilateral assistance amounted to over £20 million.

  For 2002–07, the UK-attributed contribution to the European Development Fund framework for the DRC is £17 million. In 2003–04, UK-attributed spend through the EU was –9 million.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [175676]

  Hilary Benn
  Given the very small numbers of staff who have been medically retired from DFID on these grounds since 1997 this information is withheld on grounds of individual confidentiality.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much(a) his Department and (b) the EU are spending in 2004–05 to counter HIV/AIDS in the Russian Federation. [179951]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID's forecasted bilateral expenditure on HIV/AIDS in the Russian Federation in financial year 2004–05 is £1.83 million. The EU estimate their expenditure in 2004 will be of the order of €2 to 2.5 million.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development who decided upon the payments from the Development Fund for Iraq to the US Army Corps of Engineers; what it was for; who the principal contractors were; who decided who the principal contractors would be; and if he will make a statement. [179797]

  Hilary Benn
  Procurement and contracting under the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) are the responsibility of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).

  The CPA has contracted the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to carry out certain emergency and essential work in Iraq, which is co-funded by the DFI and the US Government. Most of the DFI contracts, and most of the contract value, for which the USACE is responsible are in rebuilding gas and hydro-electric power plants and oil infrastructure. The principal contractors to date are: Fluor Intercontinental, Washington International, CH2MHILL, Parsons Iraqi Joint Venture and Kellogg Brown and Root.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list those who have had sole-sourced contracts funded by the Development Fund for Iraq; which contracts are of a value of $1,000,000 or more; and if he will make a statement. [179798]

  Hilary Benn
  A list of sole-sourced contracts funded by the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) is not available at this time.

  The International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) is currently undertaking an audit of DFI sole-sourced contracts on behalf of the international community. As a member of the Program Review Board of the DFI, the UK has been a strong advocate of international competitive tendering wherever possible.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much has been purchased under the wheat purchase programme funded by the Development Fund for Iraq; at what cost; who was contracted to supply it; what the world price for wheat was at the time of purchase; over what time scale the wheat is supplied; under which disbursement heading it is included; how it is distributed within Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [179799]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government of Iraq established the public food distribution system in 1990. This system of untargeted rationing has proved to be hugely costly to the Government and has undermined the country's domestic agriculture. DFID hopes to work with the Iraqi Interim Government and other donors to help reform this system, to the benefit of both Iraq's consumers and farmers, as soon as conditions allow.

  The amount of wheat actually purchased by the Government each year depends on the content of the "ration basket", which is decided by the Ministry of Trade (MOT) each month, depending on domestic production and existing stocks within the country. Published MOT budget information does not show the breakdown of the costs of individual public food distribution items but it is estimated that 3.5 million metric tonnes of wheat flour is required annually for the standard ration basket. Over the 12 months since the
  1486W
  creation of the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), if all of Iraq's public distribution system needs had been met from imports at world prices, the cost would have been around $700 million. This is likely to be an over-estimate since there would be some domestic purchases and use of stocks.

  The major suppliers of wheat to Iraq are Australia and the US.

  International export prices for wheat vary greatly depending on grade and freight distances but an average figure for 2003–04 is about $200/tonne.

  The MOT is responsible for purchasing grain from overseas and from domestic producers, for organising the milling contracts and the transport of the milled wheat flour to food agents.

  The following process describes how the food ration is distributed:

  1. The MOT announces the food basket for the month and calls forward food agents to collect the ration;

  2. Food and flour agents collect the coupons from households and go to the sales centre of warehouses/mills, where they receive an invoice;

  3. Food agents collect foodstuffs from the warehouses/ distribution centres;

  4. Wheat flour is transported to flour/food agents, which is paid for by the MOT;

  5. Households then collect the ration from the food/flour agents and pay the nominal fee.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what dates the Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority Program Review Board has met; which meetings were attended by the representative of the Government of the United Kingdom; what votes were conducted at these meetings; what the result was of each vote; and how the UK representative voted on each occasion. [179801]

  Hilary Benn
  The Program Review Board (PRB) meets once or twice each week. Precise dates are shown on the minutes of each meeting which are published on the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) website: iraqcoalition.org/program_review_board. The UK is represented at all PRB meetings.

  The PRB votes on each project proposal. The minutes do not record the vote of individual members. Proposals pass on a majority or unanimous vote.

  The UK votes in a manner consistent with UNSCR 1483, which established the Development Fund for Iraq (DPI) to be "used in a transparent manner to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq's infrastructure, for the continued disarmament of Iraq, and for the costs of Iraqi civilian administration, and for other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq". In its voting the UK aims to support the intentions of the Iraq Ministries of Finance and Planning and to promote the principles of international competitive tendering.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 14 June 2004,Official Report, columns 668–69W, on Iraq, if his Department will obtain a copy of the US Government Agency audits of sole-sourced contracts funded by the Development Fund for Iraq; what

  1487W
  provision there is for consideration of the copy audits when the Coalition Provisional Authority no longer exists; who approves contractors for expenditure proposals approved by the Development Fund for Iraq Program Review Board; and if he will make a statement. [179802]

  Hilary Benn
  The external audit of the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) has been delegated by UN Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003) to the International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB). The IAMB acts on behalf of the international community and has requested copies of certain US Government audit reports as part of its current work programme. The IAMB undertakes to make all its proceedings and final reports public (within 30 days of being finalised). UN Security Council Regulation 1546(2004) paragraph 24 provides for the continuation of the IAMB after the dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the return to Iraqi sovereignty.

  The approval of contractors for expenditure proposals endorsed by the Program Review Board of the Development Fund for Iraq is undertaken by the CPA.

  Morocco (Earthquake)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the assistance his Department has offered to the Moroccan Government for the victims of the 24 February earthquake in the Rif region. [180133]

  Hilary Benn
  The earthquake that affected the Al-Hoceima region of Morocco on 24 February 2004 measured 6.5 degrees on the Richter scale. It claimed over 600 lives and injured nearly 1,000.

  UK search and rescue teams were put on immediate stand-by but in the event were not required as the Moroccan civil authorities and Red Crescent movement, supported by some international teams, coped adequately with that phase of the relief effort. Following discussion with the Moroccan Government about priority needs, DFID sent an aircraft with 402 winterised family tents to the earthquake area. The tents were distributed to earthquake victims by the Moroccan Protection Civile, supported by two DFID staff. The cost of the relief flight and tents was approximately £155,000. The European Commission also responded to the relief effort committing approximately £650,000 of support. Including the UK share of this support, the overall UK response was around £280,000.

  On 24 May 2004, the Moroccan Prime Minister, Driss Jettou, announced that the Moroccan Government have earmarked a £165 million budget to rehabilitate and develop the quake-hit north-eastern region.

  Russian Federation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people employed by his Department have worked on harm reduction programmes(a) for and (b) in the Russian Federation. [179936]
  1488W
  Hilary Benn
  DFID currently employs nine staff which are involved in our work on HIV/AIDS, including managing harm reduction activities, in Russia. Eight are based in the DFID—Russia office in Moscow, one in London. Five are administrators, four are advisers. Also, over the last five years DFID has employed three Consultancy Companies involving 16 individual experts on four harm reduction projects.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the impact on harm reduction programmes supported by his Department in the Russian Federation of the(a) 1995 Federal Law on the Prevention of Dissemination in the Russian Federation of Disease Caused by Human Immunodeficiency Virus and (b) the 1998 Federal Law on Narcotic Means and Psychotropic Substances. [179937]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID funded a project entitled "Building Police Support for Harm Reduction" from August 2001 to December 2003. The project was contracted to International Family Health, and its purpose was to involve the Russian police as an integral part of harm reduction strategies. One output of this work was a report by Professor William E. Butler, Professor of Comparative Law, University of London, which sought to examine and clarify a range of issues on harm reduction in Russia from a legal and judicial perspective.

  This report (published by International Family Health: ISBN 0–9545761–0–1) included an assessment of the impact of these and other Russian federal laws on harm reduction programmes in Russia and concluded that the provision of harm reduction services in Russia, in particular services for injecting drug users, is consistent with Russian law. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNDOC), Open Health Institute (OHI), AIDS Foundation East West (AFEW) and others, are continuing to work on the legal issues affecting harm reduction.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what account has been taken by(a) his Department and (b) the European Union of Article 15 (4) of the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation in support for harm reduction programmes in the federation. [179938]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has taken account of the prevailing view among Russian and international jurists that, on the whole, the Russian Federation has properly fulfilled its international legal duties under relevant international law relevant to harm reduction, including the United Nations Narcotics Conventions.

  The EU is supporting HIV/AIDS projects in Russia, including information, education and communication campaigns and training for health personnel, but is not supporting the pro vision of targeted harm reduction services for vulnerable groups.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the HIV/Aids projects in the Russian Federation that received financial support from his Department in 2003–04. [179939]
  1489W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The following HIV/AIDS projects in the Russian Federation, including projects not principally related to HIV/AIDS but which contained an HIV/AIDS component, received financial support from DFID in 2003–04:

  Project title

  2003–04 spend (£)

  Open Health Institute Harm Reduction Bridging Project

  1,589,483

  Knowledge for Action for HIV/AIDS in the Russian Federation

  645,793

  United Nations Fund for International Partnerships: Comprehensive Partnership Strategies for HIV/STI Prevention among Young People in the Russian Federation

  457,046

  Development of a Public Health-Based Approach to the Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Samara

  75,582

  Project title

  Purpose

  Duration

  DFID funding (£)

  Open Health Institute Harm Reduction Bridging Project*

  To reduce the transmission of HIV among injecting drug users and commercial sex workers in OHI-supported harm reduction sites in the Russian Federation

  July 2001-August 2004

  3,500,000

  Knowledge for Action for HIV/AIDS in the Russian Federation

  To create the knowledge base on HIV in the Russian Federation necessary to guide effective policy and intervention

  September 2002–August 2005

  1,500,000

  United Nations Fund for International Partnerships: Comprehensive Partnership Strategies for HIV/STI Prevention among Young People in the Russian Federation*

  To reduce the incidence of HIV/STIs among young people, especially girls and young women, by ensuring the availability of and access to information, education, health services, counselling for HIV, testing and commodities required for young people to develop and exercise effective life skills

  June 2002–November 2004

  1,125,000

  Development of a Public Health-based Approach to the Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Samara*

  To develop sustainable, high quality STI services in Samara and disseminate successful approaches at federal level

  September 1998–March 2004

  981,146

  Prevention of HIV/AIDS among Injecting Drug Users in Sverdlovsk Oblast*

  To improve and develop preventative public education programmes on HIV/AIDS, with a special focus on injecting drug use

  April 1998–April 2003

  775,334

  UNAIDS Regional Harm Reduction Task Force: Capacity Expansion

  To strengthen the capacity of the UNAIDS Regional Task Force on HIV prevention among injecting drug users in Eastern Europe

  September 2000–November 2002

  450,000

  Comprehensive Targeted HIV Prevention and Control Demonstration Project (Design Phase)

  Design phase. Planned purpose was to establish integrated programmes of targeted HIV prevention activities in two localities at a scale sufficient to control the epidemic and in order to convince policymakers that such investment is worthwhile.

  October 2002–April 2003

  337,787

  Building Police Support for Harm Reduction

  To involve the police as an integral part of harm reduction

  August 2001–March 2004

  489,891

  Assistance to the World Bank for the Russia TB/AIDS Control Project

  Technical assistance for the design of a $150 million World Bank loan on tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS control.

  May 2000–April 2002

  200,000

  Harm Reduction Project

  To reduce transmission of HIV among injecting drug users in Sverdlovsk by developing a co-ordinated harm reduction programme

  December 1999–March 2001

  35,949

  11th International Conference on the Reduction of Drug-Related Harm: Project Planning Activities

  To assist in developing a large-scale project on reducing drug related harm in Russia

  April 2000–April 2001

  60,081

  Harm Reduction Conference, New Delhi

  To provide funding for 20 Russian delegates to attend the Harm Reduction Conference in New Delhi

  April 2001–October 2001

  41,405

  1490W

  Project title

  2003–04 spend (£)

  Comprehensive Targeted HIV Prevention and Control Demonstration Project (Design Phase)

  42,071

  Building Police Support for Harm Reduction

  200,519

  World Health Organisation: Strengthened Cooperation between Tuberculosis and HIV Control Services in the Russian Federation

  100,000

  Total

  3,110,494

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the harm reduction projects in the Russian Federation that received financial support from his Department in each of the last seven years. [179940]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has provided financial support for the following projects related to harm reduction in the past seven years. The projects marked with an asterisk have supported the provision of harm reduction services to high risk groups:

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with(a) the Government of Sudan, (b) the UN and (c) non-governmental organisation on barriers preventing aid being delivered to Darfur. [179300]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is facing a humanitarian emergency in Darfur, where the provision of assistance is absolutely vital. In this context, hindrances to the delivery of humanitarian supplies are unacceptable. The UK has been working to facilitate humanitarian access to Darfur and we are making progress, although there is still more that needs to be done.

  I raised the question of issuing visas to Sudan with the Sudanese Foreign Minister in London on 11 May. He gave me a firm commitment that visas for humanitarian personnel working in Darfur would be issued within 48 hours. There has been a marked improvement as a result of this commitment. On 20 May, the British Ambassador met with the Sudanese Foreign Minister, following which he announced the change to a 48 hour notification system for travel to Darfur, replacing the previous requirement for a travel permit. This improvement has also allowed progress on the ground, although there have been some outstanding issues regarding local level implementation and the rules pertaining to notification of passengers on World Food Programme (WFP) flights.

  I raised the question of humanitarian access with the First Vice President, in Khartoum, the Minister for Humanitarian Affairs, and the State Minister for Finance on 8 June, where I was given firm commitments that the Sudanese Government would fast-track customs clearance for humanitarian goods within seven days, and that new international NGOs applying for registration to work in Darfur would be fast-tracked in 10 days. This has resulted in new international NGO registrations. They also agreed that medical supplies that were on an approved list did not need testing before being brought into Sudan. I raised with them the specific complaint from Medecin Sans Frontieres—Holland that 200MT of food and 30MT of medical supplies had been held in Port Sudan for three months. Both Ministers assured me that this would be released within days. This has now taken place.

  Following my visit, the British Ambassador wrote to the Minister for Humanitarian Affairs and the State Minister in the Ministry for Humanitarian Affairs highlighting specific instances of on-going bureaucratic difficulties about access to Darfur faced by NGOs. These included outstanding applications for registration from new International NGOs, the need to give 72 hours notice for passengers on UN flights, the need for clarity about the requirements for testing medical and food supplies, the urgency of releasing radio and communications equipment from customs and the need to issue promptly visas for international health staff. An inter-agency technical committee on Darfur meets regularly to discuss questions of humanitarian access and is attended by the British Ambassador. The next meeting will take place on 23rd June, where all these outstanding questions will be raised. Following the outcome of that meeting, I intend to speak to the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs.
  1492W
  On my return from Sudan, I spoke to the UN Secretary General about the need for humanitarian access in Darfur. I have also been in correspondence with the Heads of UN agencies and have spoken to Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of UNICEF and James Morris, Executive Director of WFP about the experience of their agencies in delivering assistance in Darfur.

  The UK Government has been in constant dialogue with UK NGOs working in Darfur since September 2003. We have held regular meetings with the Disasters and Emergency Committee in London on Darfur, and have been in frequent contact with the Sudanese Embassy. In Khartoum, the Ambassador has taken the lead in establishing regular meetings with the Government of Sudan, NGOs and donors to discuss the question of access to Darfur.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the recent statements by the UN that the Sudan Government is stopping aid reaching western Darfur. [179535]

  Hilary Benn
  I am gravely concerned about the constraints on humanitarian assistance to Darfur. Despite some improvements to visa and travel notification procedures for Darfur announced on 20 May, NGOs and the UN are still facing bureaucratic problems with customs clearance and notification for travel on UN flights to Darfur. DFID has have been in constant dialogue with the Government of Sudan on this issue. The UK has been working to facilitate humanitarian access to Darfur and we are making progress, although there is still more that needs to be done.

  I raised the question of issuing visas to Sudan with the Sudanese Foreign Minister in London on 11 May. He gave me a firm commitment that visas for humanitarian personnel working in Darfur would be issued within 48 hours. There has been a marked improvement as a result of this commitment. On 20 May, the British Ambassador met with the Sudanese Foreign Minister, following which he announced the change to a 48 hour notification system for travel to Darfur, replacing the previous requirement for a travel permit. This improvement has also allowed progress on the ground, although there have been some outstanding issues regarding local level implementation and the rules pertaining to notification of passengers on World Food Programme (WFP) flights.

  I raised the question of humanitarian access with the First Vice President, In Khartoum the Minister for Humanitarian Affairs, and the State Minister for Finance on 8 June, where I was given firm commitments that the Sudanese Government would fast-track customs clearance for humanitarian goods within seven days, and that new international NGOs applying for registration to work in Darfur would be fast-tracked in ten days. This has resulted in new international NGO registrations. They also agreed that medical supplies that were on an approved list did not need testing before being brought into Sudan. I raised with them the specific complaint from Medecin Sans Frontieres-Holland that 200MT of food and 30MT of medical supplies had been

  1493W
  held in Port Sudan for 3 months. Both Ministers assured me that this would be released within days. This has now taken place.

  Following my visit, the British Ambassador wrote to the Minister for Humanitarian Affairs and the State Minister for Humanitarian Affairs highlighting specific instances of on-going bureaucratic difficulties about access to Darfur faced by NGOs. These included outstanding applications for registration from new international NGOs, the need to give 72 hours notice for passengers on UN flights, the need for clarity about the requirements for testing medical and food supplies, the urgency of releasing radio and communications equipment from customs and the need to issue promptly visas for international health staff. An inter-agency technical committee on Darfur meets regularly to discuss questions of humanitarian access and is attended by the British Ambassador. The next meeting will take place on 23 June, where all these outstanding questions will be raised. Following the outcome of that meeting, I intend to speak to the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs.

  On my return from Sudan, I spoke to the UN Secretary General about the need for humanitarian access in Darfur. I have also been in correspondence with the Heads of UN agencies and have spoken to Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of UNICEF and James Morris, Executive Director of WFP about the experience of their agencies in delivering assistance in Darfur.

  The UK Government have been in constant dialogue with UK NGOs working in Darfur since September 2003. We have held regular meetings with the Disasters and Emergency Committee in London on Darfur, and have been in frequent contact with the Sudanese Embassy. In Khartoum, the Ambassador has taken the lead in establishing regular meetings with the Government of Sudan, NGOs and donors to discuss the question of access to Darfur.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid he is giving to the World Food Programme support to the Saharan refugee camps. [179299]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's assistance to the Saharawi refugees is channelled through contributions to the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), rather than in the form of direct DFID support. DFID believes that this collaborative approach towards funding, alongside our international partners, represents the best way of addressing the problems faced by the refugees' population.

  The EC is in the process of agreeing €8 million of humanitarian aid for the Saharawi refugees living in the Tindouf region for the period of 15 months from 1 June 2004. ECHO has also supported the Saharawi refugees through similar decisions in 2003 and 2002. For the period from 1 June 2004, €6.62 million has been allocated for ensuring the stability of food supplies. The World Food Programme (WFP) is a potential partner for delivery of this assistance but this has not yet been confirmed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Publications
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 25 May 2004,Official Report, column 1561W, on departmental publications, what body or organisation is responsible for producing each publication. [178923]

  Ms Hewitt
  The answer is in a table which has been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Websites
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total cost of her Department's websites, including those of its agencies, was in the most recent year for which figures are available. [178792]

  Ms Hewitt
  The cost for the Department's headquarters website, www.dti.gov.uk, is included in the overall service charge paid under the IT service contract which has been in place since April 1999. There is no separation of website costs in this charge. The costs of the agency websites for the financial year 2003–04, including VAT, are:

  £000

  Agency

  Cost

  Companies House

  245

  The Patent Office

  130

  The Insolvency Service

  53.6

  The Small Business Service

  275

  The Employment Tribunals Service

  33.5

  The National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  36

  In addition, I am the sponsor for the cross-departmental Business.gov programme, which includes the Businesslink.gov website. The cost for the development of this major programme in 2003–04, including the former businesslink.org site which it replaced in November 2003, was £14.2 million.

  Motorsports
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the effect, in the event of the loss of the British Grand Prix, on(a) revenues in the motorsport sector, (b) jobs in the motorsport sector and (c) outsourcing of research and development and specialist engineering projects to the UK; [177236]

  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the significance of the British Grand Prix to the success of the UK motorsport cluster. [177237]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The Motorsport Competitiveness Panel, co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Mr. Paul Barron, made an assessment of all factors influencing the success of the UK motorsport industry. It concluded that retention in the UK of "world-class motorsport events", including the Formula One Grand Prix, the Motorcycle Grand Prix and the Wales Rally GB was important both economically and in maintaining the public profile of the industry.
  1495W
  The panel's assessment of the direct economic impact in the event that the Formula One Grand Prix were to be lost to the UK was a net loss of £3.4 million income and 230 jobs. This estimate does not take into account any secondary effects on the UK motorsport industry. However, the panel concluded that such effects would be significant. UK-based teams have confirmed that the presence of world-class events and the associated marketing opportunities are important reasons for locating in the UK and the loss of any of these events would lead to a loss of business for UK motorsport companies.

  The Motorsport Panel's full report was published on 11 July 2003 and is available at: http:// www.autoindustry.co.uk/docs/motorsportpanelreport.pdf No additional assessment of the issues raised has been made since that time.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many motorsport companies use Business Links; and how many motorsport companies have applied for research and development tax credits. [177238]

  Jacqui Smith: This information is not collected centrally hence the information requested cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives her Department has undertaken to promote inward investment in the British motorsport industry. [177239]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The Department is working as part of the Government Motorsport Unit (GMU) to attract further investment to the UK's world-leading motorsport industry. International trade and inward investment are key areas of delivery for the GMU and £2 million has been set aside to support this work over the next five years.

  Initiatives that have already been undertaken, in collaboration with industry bodies, include promotion of the sector at the annual Autosport Engineering and Performance Racing Industry trade shows in the UK and USA respectively. These activities are designed to encourage overseas joint ventures and alliances by UK companies as well as inward investment. Future initiatives will be undertaken based upon industry priorities.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department has taken to develop the Motorsport Valley brand for promoting(a) the motorsport industry and (b) motorsport-related tourism.[177450]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: In common with other motorsport-related issues, the Department's activities in this area are taken forward through the Government Motorsport Unit (GMU), which includes both central Departments and regional agencies.

  In 2003, the Motorsport Valley brand was used as part of a high-profile inward investment promotion by the four regions concerned (East and West Midlands, South East and East of England). These agencies put forward a united message under the Motorsport Valley banner at the Performance Racing Industry trade show
  1496W
  in Indianapolis, USA. The promotion was well received and further plans are being taken forward with the relevant industry bodies.

  The brand is also used to promote motorsport tourism through a website: www.visitmotorsportvalley.com and an associated national motorsport map. These activities aim to reach a broader audience than traditional motorsport enthusiasts. This initiative is once again being taken forward on a collaborative basis by the four regions.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 16 June 2004,Official Report, column 959W, on deregulation, what formal assessment her Department has made of the negative economic impact of obsolete EU regulation. [179969]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has not carried out a formal assessment of the economic impact of obsolete EU regulation. In part, this obsolete legislation consists of a number of legal acts with time-limited application (e.g. the fixing of agricultural prices in a given harvest year, or the grant of a particular time-limited status, derogation or financial support to a member state or other entity). This type of obsolete legislation would therefore not have an economic impact once it is no longer applicable. The European Commission is currently taking steps to remove such legislation, along with other measures to secure a reliable, up-to-date and user-friendly body of EC law as described in its February 2003 Communication, "Updating and Simplifying the Community Acquis" (COM (2003) 71).

  Steel
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of UK steel production and US tariffs on UK steel. [180060]

  Jacqui Smith
  The overall prospects for UK steel production look encouraging. According to the Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau, UK steel production rose by 4.9 per cent. in March 2004 and by 7.2 per cent. to reach 3.3 million tonnes for the first quarter of 2004. The UK monthly total was the second highest in over two years. World demand is strong largely as a result of the expansion of the Chinese economy. In terms of the UK steel market, the most recent CBI Business Survey shows manufacturing in a more positive light with output expected to increase over the next three months at its fastest pace since 1999.

  I am pleased that following a ruling of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, which was subsequently confirmed by an Appeal Panel, President Bush removed safeguard tariffs on steel on 4 December 2003.

  Western Sahara (Oil Exploration)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the granting of a licence to Wessex Exploration to survey for oil in the occupied land of the Western Sahara; and what the status is of the UN policy towards such exploitation. [179312]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 18 June 2004]: I have been asked to reply.
  1497W
  We regard the sovereignty of Western Sahara as undetermined pending United Nations efforts to find a solution to the dispute over the territory. We fully support the efforts of the UN Secretary-General to find a fair and lasting solution. The UN Legal Counsel gave an opinion on the signing of contracts for exploration of mineral resources in Western Sahara in 2002 (S/2002/161 of 12 Feb 2002). We fully support this advice.

  We are aware of contracts between both the Moroccan Government and the Polisario with various international oil and gas companies We have not been involved in these deals.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what policy is in place in respect of returning to Zimbabwe persons residing in Northern Ireland who have had their application for asylum refused, or who otherwise fall outside the criteria for protection under the immigration legislation;. [179996]

  (2) if he will ensure that no persons seeking asylum in Northern Ireland from Zimbabwe will be returned to Zimbabwe against their will. [180011]

  Mr. Browne
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) on 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 263W, setting out the Government's position on the return of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe. This policy applies equally to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Zimbabwean nationals are residing in Northern Ireland; how many Zimbabwean asylum seekers have been successful on their initial application for asylum; how many cases are under appeal to the Immigration Appellate Authority, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal or higher courts; and how many Zimbabwean asylum seekers who were initially refused have been subsequently successful after exhausting appeal rights. [180018]

  Mr. Browne
  There were 289 Zimbabwean nationals residing in Northern Ireland in 2001, based on the results of the Northern Ireland Census of 2001.

  As at the end of December 2003 there were 10 Zimbabwean asylum seekers (including dependants) supported in NASS accommodation in Northern Ireland. There were no Zimbabwean asylum seekers in receipt of subsistence only support from NASS in Northern Ireland.

  4,175 initial decisions were made on asylum applications from nationals of Zimbabwe in 2003, of which 870 were granted asylum, 30 were granted Exceptional Leave to Remain, Humanitarian Protection or Discretionary Leave and 3,275 were refused.

  Information on the number of Zimbabwean asylum seekers' cases that are awaiting appeal outcomes is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  1498W
  Those asylum applicants who were initially refused and have subsequently exhausted their appeal rights are not granted refugee status and therefore are not successful in their application for refugee status. It is theoretically possible that an individual submits further representations post-appeal which leads to a grant but such cases are rare. Information on such cases is not currently available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Information in regard to asylum seekers is published in the quarterly web pages and in the annual statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom", available from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov. uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what practical means, with particular reference to air transport, has been arranged for failed asylum seekers to return to(a) Iraq and (b) Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [174250]

  Mr. Browne
  We announced in February our intention to begin enforced returns to Iraq. We are working to finalise the practicalities of the enforced returns programme, which we will implement as soon as the necessary arrangements are in place.

  In addition since July last year the Home Office has been facilitating, without incident, the return of small numbers of Iraqi citizens who want to return home through the International Organisation for Migration.

  Zimbabwe is the only country to which, as a matter of policy we do not at present generally enforce the return of failed asylum seekers. This policy is based not on asylum or human rights reasons but on our view that in the wider context of the Government's position on Zimbabwe. It would be inappropriate to return failed asylum seekers applicable at this time.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of successful asylum applications were made in this country in 2003; and what proportion of those were denied asylum support under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. [179929]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the UK's share of asylum applications in Europe in 2003 that resulted in grants of refugee status (including appeal outcome) is not available. In terms of applications per head of the population, the UK ranked 9th in Europe in 2003.

  Information on the proportion of applications in the UK in 2003 that resulted in grants of refugee status is not yet available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Outcomes of applications for asylum depend on the merit of individual cases, and situations in countries of origin.

  The eligibility for support under section 55 was considered by the National Asylum Support Service for a total of 14,760 cases in 2003, of which 9,410 asylum seekers (excluding dependants) were notified that they were ineligible. Some applicants notified that they are ineligible for support under section 55, apply nevertheless and these are shown in the published statistics within the "Invalid" support type category.

  1499W
  Information on the numbers refused support under section 55 is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  An estimation of the outcomes of applications for asylum in the UK made in 2003, up to and including appeal at the IAA, will be included in the Home Office annual statistical "bulletin Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 2003". It is planned to publish the bulletin at the end of August 2004, and it will be available from the Library or on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www. homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of asylum seekers denied support under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in the first quarter of 2004 who claimed asylum within(a) one, (b) two, (c) three and (d) four days of their arrival in the UK. [179931]

  Mr. Browne
  Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 came into force on 8 January 2003, restricting the availability of NASS support to those asylum seekers who make an asylum application as soon as reasonably practicable. From 17 December 2003 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that those who could give a credible account that their asylum claim was made within three days of arrival in the United Kingdom will normally be accepted as having applied as soon as reasonably practicable.

  The eligibility for support under section 55 was considered by the National Asylum Support Service for a total of 2,650 cases in the first quarter (January-March 2004). The number of asylum seekers, excluding dependants, notified that they were ineligible for NASS support under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in the first quarter of 2004 was 890. A breakdown of this figure by the number of days taken to claim asylum after arrival in the UK is unavailable and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. Some applicants notified that they are ineligible for support under section 55 apply nevertheless and these are shown in the published statistics within the "Invalid" support type category.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS is published in the quarterly web pages and in the annual statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom", available from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant asylum applicants from Zimbabwe the right to work while they remain in the United Kingdom. [179998]

  Mr. Browne
  Generally speaking asylum seekers are not allowed to work while their application for asylum remains outstanding. There remains discretion to grant permission to work in exceptional circumstances. This discretion is exercised sparingly but might be appropriate in cases where an asylum seeker has, through no fault of their own, waited for longer than 1500W
  12 months for an initial decision on their claim. It would not be appropriate to grant permission to work to asylum seekers based on their nationality.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unsuccessful asylum applicants from Zimbabwe, residing in Northern Ireland, have exhausted all appeal rights but have not been returned to Zimbabwe. [180004]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of asylum seekers who have exhausted their rights of appeal is not readily available and could only be obtained by examination of individual case files to obtain information on the final outcomes from each tier of the appeal process. This would incur disproportionate cost. No information on the number of unsuccessful asylum seekers awaiting removal is available, partly because some applicants may leave the United Kingdom without informing the Immigration Service.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long on average current applicants have had to wait to receive their papers after an asylum application has been granted at(a) initial stage and (b) after appeal. [180005]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The latest published statistics show that the speed of processing asylum applications continues to improve significantly. Eighty per cent. of applications (excluding withdrawals and 3rd country cases1) received in the period April to December 2003 had initial decisions reached and served within two months, compared with 74 per cent. of applications in 2002–03, and 61 per cent. of applications in 2001–02. This exceeded the Government's targets of 65 per cent. for 2002–03 and 60 per cent. for 2001–02, and we are on track to exceed the target of 75 per cent. for 2003–04. In 2002–03,84 per cent. of applications had initial decisions reached and served in four months, and 87 per cent. in six months.

  We are also on track to meet the target of having decisions up to and including appeal made and served on 60 per cent. of applications (excluding withdrawals and 3rd country cases1) in 2003–04.

  Information on the timeliness of initial decisions is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.
  1Cases which may be the responsibility of other EU member states under the Dublin Convention.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what length of time assessors allow for the scrutiny of an application for asylum. [180009]

  Mr. Browne
  Each asylum claim is considered on its merits and there is no specific time limit for the scrutiny of an individual claim. However, the Government target is to decide and serve 75 per cent. of new asylum applications within two months of the application date. The latest published statistics show that this target is being met. 80 per cent. of applications (excluding withdrawals and 3rd country cases1) received in the period April to December 2003 had initial decisions made and served within two months.
  1501W
  The number of older applications awaiting an initial decision is falling (18,100 at the end of March 2004) and with present levels of intake and output is on track to be cleared by the end of this year.

  Information on the timeliness of initial decisions is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.
  1Cases which may be the responsibility of other EU member states under the Dublin Convention.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used in assessing asylum applications. [180012]

  Mr. Browne
  Each application for asylum is considered on its individual merits to determine whether the applicant has demonstrated a well founded fear of persecution in his or her country of nationality for one of the reasons set out in the 1951 Refugee Convention. These are reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The specific facts of the case are taken into account, along with country information and case law relevant to the claim.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with(a) the Government of Bahrain and (b) governments of other states in the Gulf region concerning Somali people who had sought asylum in Britain and had been deported. [180346]

  Mr. Browne
  Earlier this year the Immigration and Nationality Directorate signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United Arab Emirates immigration authorities in Dubai to use Dubai airport as a transit point to effect the return of failed asylum seekers and immigration offenders to destinations world-wide including to Somalia.

  Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the(a) agenda and (b) minutes of the meeting of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs of 28 November 2002; [179235]

  (2) who the members of the Statistics, Information and Research Committee of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs were in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003; and what the professional background of each is; [179236]

  (3) if he will place in the Library a copy of the assessment of the Statistics, Information and Research Committee of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs of the cannabis relate d articles of the 23 November 2002 edition of the British Medical Journal; [179237]

  (4) if he will place in the Library copies of the (a) agenda and (b) minutes of each meeting of the Statistics, Information and Research Committee of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in 2003; [179238]

  (5) if he will place in the Library a copy of the research of the Statistics, Information and Research Committee of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that informed the Advisory Council's final report on the reclassification of cannabis.[179255]
  1502W
  Caroline Flint
  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) is a statutory independent body established under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA 1971) to advise the Government on drug related issues within the UK. Two of the ACMD's subcommittees—the Technical Committee (TC) and the Statistics, Information and Research Committee (SIRC) held several joint meetings in relation to discussing the reclassification of cannabis. The TC has the broad remit of reviewing the MDA 1971 and the Misuse of Drugs Regulations. As part of this it has responsibility for advising the full Council as to the appropriate classification and scheduling of drugs. SIRC, which was dissolved on completion of the cannabis work, was responsible for monitoring and providing advice on research bearing on drug misuse in the UK and drawing attention to the full Council features which appeared most significant. Included at Annex A, is a list of all SIRC members between 2001 and 2003 with their backgrounds and the organisation which they represented. Also included is a list of all Technical Committee Members during the discussions on cannabis reclassification and their respective background and the organisations that they represented.

  The ACMD's minutes and agendas are not public documents. The published report—"The Classification of Cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971", published in 2002 represents the considerations and conclusions of the TC, SIRC and the full Council on the reclassification of cannabis. This includes a list of published research material which was taken into consideration. As indicated above, SIRC was disbanded on completion of the cannabis work. However, the articles featured in the British Medical Journal published on 23 November 2002 were closely considered by Professor David Nutt (chair of the ACMD Technical Committee), Sir Michael Rawlins (chair of the ACMD) and Department of Health officials who were content that the advice given by full council to reclassify cannabis was not compromised by the content of the articles.

  Annex A: Membership to the Statistics. Information and Research Committee 2001–03

  Mrs. K. Roberts—Pharmacist

  Dr. M. Donmall—Manchester University Drugs Research Unit

  Dr. N. Dorn—Drugscope

  Ms. V. Evans—Drugscope

  Mr. P. Hayes—National Treatment Agency

  Dr. M. Hickman—Department of Social Science and Medicines

  Professor M. Lader—Psychopharmacology

  Dr. L. King—The Forensic Science Service

  Mr. M. Silver—National Criminal Intelligence Service

  Richard Pates—Clinical Psychiatrist & Chair of the Advisory Panel on Substance Misuse for the Welsh Assembly

  Ms. C. Clancy—Senior Lecturer (Mental Health and Addictions)

  Mr. M. Frischer—Department of Medicines Management, Keele University

  Ms. S. Haw—Health Education Board for Scotland

  Mr. P. Stroner—Scottish Drugs Misuse Database

  Professor J. Strang—Senior Lecturer, Addiction Research Unit

  Ms. K. Barton—SEHD
  1503W
  Mr. N. Wilson—National Criminal Intelligence Service

  Technical Committee Members during the discussions on the reclassification of cannabis

  Professor D. Nutt—Psychopharmacology, University of Bristol

  Dr. J. Duxbury—Department of Oral Medicine, University of Manchester

  Dr. C. Gerada—General Practitioner

  Dr. N. Gill—Public Health Laboratory Service

  Ms. L. Hewitt—Project Manager, Stockwell Project

  Mr. R. Howard—Drugscope

  Mr. A. Hunter—The Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry

  Professor R.S. Jones—Department of Anaesthesia, University of Liverpool

  Dr. L. King—The Forensic Science Service

  Professor O. Meth-Cohn—Chemist, University of Sunderland

  Dr. D. Paterson—Consultant Psychiatrist

  Professor M.D. Rawlins—Psychopharmacology, University of Newcastle

  Mrs. K. Roberts—Pharmacist

  Dr. S. Reuben—Liverpool Drug Dependence Clinic

  Professor G. Phillips—Chemist

  Dr. S. L. H. Thomas—Regional Drugs and Therapeutics Centre, Newcastle

  Dr. J. Loudon—Health Department, The Scottish Executive

  Dr. M. Griffin—The Forensic Science Service

  Dr. E. Major—Medicines Control Agency

  Mr. R. Treble—Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been promoted by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in each of the last five years. [179259]

  Caroline Flint
  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) does not actively promote any external research. It does commission its own research and also considers and references other pieces of work in the course of its research. In the last five years the ACMD has published pieces of research which include: Hidden Harm: Responding to the needs of problem drug users, The Classification of Cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and Reducing Drug Related Deaths.

  Assets Recovery Agency
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total budget of the Assets Recovery Agency has been since January 2003; and how many staff have been employed. [179893]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 22 June 2004]: The Assets Recovery Agency became operational on the 24 February 2003. It received a budget of —13 million in 2003–04 and £15.5 million in 2004–05. The agency employs a total of 131 staff.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been recovered by the Assets Recovery Agency since January 2003 through civil recovery orders. [179894]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 22 June 2004]: The Assets Recovery Agency became operational on 24 February 2003. In its first full year of operation, the
  1504W
  agency adopted for action 59 civil recovery cases. These cases have almost —50 million of recoverable assets attributable to them. In 24 of the cases interim receiving orders or freezing orders have been obtained with a total recoverable asset value of £14.1 million.

  The agency has successfully recovered £2,000 in a tax assessment case, £16,000 in a civil recovery order and obtained a confiscation order with a value of £335,000.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil recovery orders have been successfully prosecuted by the Assets Recovery Agency since January 2003. [179895]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 22 June 2004]: The Assets Recovery Agency became operational on the 24 February 2003. In its first full year of operation the Agency adopted for action 59 civil recovery cases. A further 27 cases are being assessed for possible civil recovery action. The Agency has successfully completed one civil recovery order. The remaining cases are being taken forward.

  The Agency has also obtained one criminal confiscation order and has assisted the law enforcement authorities in the investigation of 17 confiscation cases.

  Body Armour
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has received regarding(a) the extent of injury sustained by a person wearing body armour to specification (i) HGIA and (ii) HGI when hit by standard ammunition fired by short-barrelled hand guns and (b) the likely period of disablement and inability to work consequent on such injury. [179781]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 21 June 2004]: Comparing two identical shots at the same position on the same person, the injury to the person wearing the HG1A armour is likely to show more severe bruising and trauma.

  It is impossible to predict the exact nature and extent of an injury as this will depend on a number of factors such as the position of the shot and the build and physical condition of the person wearing this armour.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken with or on behalf of police forces to obtain compensation for forces provided with body armour to specification HGIA instead of HGI as ordered. [179782]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 21 June 2004]: This is a matter that the forces themselves have taken up with the manufacturer. I understand that the manufacturer has offered free upgrades to restore the armour to its original specification to all forces involved.

  Cannabis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for a review of the effect of the reclassification of cannabis.[178505]

  Caroline Flint
  The Government reclassified cannabis as a Class C drug earlier this year following advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, to allow
  1505W
  the police to focus on Class A drugs which do the most harm. The Home Office is working closely with police forces to monitor the policing of drug offences since cannabis was reclassified and early figures are encouraging. As more robust data becomes available a more thorough assessment of the impact of reclassification will be undertaken.

  Coroner's Court (North Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the coroner's court in North Yorkshire. [163621]

  Paul Goggins
  There are two coroner's districts within the county of North Yorkshire. York unitary authority, which was formally within that county, has its own coroner. I recently wrote to the hon. Member about a constituency case involving the latter and have asked officials to explore issues relating to that case. I have no current plans to make a statement.

  Coroners
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what role the Government have in setting limits or determining the appropriate charge to be levied by Her Majesty's Coroners upon bereaved relatives and other interested parties in payment for photocopying of documents and statements to be disclosed under Rule 37 of the Coroners Act 1988; when the level of the charge was last reviewed; and what relief is available for individuals on low incomes; [179513]

  (2) if he will take into account (a) transparency in the inquest process and (b) access for those with limited means when determining the appropriate charge to be levied by Her Majesty's Coroners upon (i) bereaved relatives and (ii) other interested parties in payment for photocopying of documents and statements to be disclosed under Rule 37 of the Coroners Act 1988. [179806]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government prescribe the fees payable to coroners for supplying copies of inquisitions, depositions, post mortem examination reports or other documents relating to an inquest. These fees are set out in the Coroner's Records (Fees for Copies) Rules 2002 and followed discussions on the appropriate level with the Coroners Society. Coroners have powers to waive any fee in cases of hardship and have been advised that no charge can be made in respect of providing a copy of any document where an inquest has not been held.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter of 4 May from the hon. Member for Walsall, North regarding a constituent, ref 5120/4 [177874]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 24 June 2004.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when officials at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will reply to letters from the hon. Member for Vauxhall dated 25 March and 20 May about a constituent, reference number O165652. [178741]
  1506W
  Mr. Browne
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate wrote to my hon. Friend on 11 June 2004.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when officials at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will reply to a letter from the hon. Member for Vauxhall dated 4 March about a constituent, reference number B508994. [178742]

  Mr. Browne
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate wrote to my hon. Friend on 17 June.

  Criminal Prosecutions (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful criminal prosecutions were brought for crimes perpetrated in each Merseyside constituency in each of the last three years; and how many criminal charges were pressed for crimes perpetrated in Crosby in each of the last three years. [177849]

  Paul Goggins
  Information on criminal prosecutions for crimes perpetrated in particular areas is not available; rather, the information relates to offenders prosecuted in particular areas.

  Nor are statistics of defendants charged with offences collected centrally. It is also not possible to break down the court proceedings data collected centrally to constituency level (because constituencies do not coincide with petty sessional areas).

  The following table, however, gives the number of defendants (a) convicted and (b) not convicted in the Merseyside police force area as a whole.

  Defendants convicted and those not convicted of offences of all types at all courts in the Merseyside police force area, 2000–2002

  Defendants convicted

  Defendants not convicted1

  2000

  40,375

  15,704

  2001

  41,372

  16,120

  2002

  44,126

  13,240

  1Includes defendants whose proceedings were discontinued, those discharged under Sec 6 MCA 1980, and those whose charges were withdrawn, dismissed or acquitted.

  Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Cycling
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice is given by his Department to police forces in England and Wales about the enforcement of legislation which prohibits cycling on footpaths. [178309]

  Caroline Flint
  Chief officers of police are best placed to assess the level, nature and causes of cycling offences locally and decide the response.

  Police officers will take action as appropriate against cyclists whom they see breaking the law in this way. Forces also sometimes undertake short, intensive campaigns to deal with persistent cycling offenders.

  To help enforcement we have given community support officers the power to issue £30 fixed penalty notices for cycling inconsiderately or on the pavement
  1507W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will encourage pedestrians who are knocked over by cyclists on footpaths and pavements to report the incident to the police. [178776]

  Caroline Flint
  Cycling on the footpath is an offence under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835. The police will enforce the offence as appropriate. As with other offending we would encourage members of the public to give evidence of specific problems and of particularly dangerous behaviour to the police. This will help ensure that the police target their responses effectively.

  Departmental Press Officers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many press officers were employed in his Department in each year from 1990–91 to 2003–04; what the total cost was in each year; and if he will make a statement.[162848]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Records of numbers and costs before 1996–97 have not been kept.

  Press office numbers and costs for the following years are outlined as follows:

  Numbers

  Cost (£)

  1996–97

  16

  369,000

  1997–98

  13

  332,000

  1998–1999

  13

  329,000

  1999–2000

  16

  345,000

  2000–01

  131

  863,000

  2001–02

  235

  1 million

  2002–03

  39

  1.7 million

  2003–04

  39

  1.9 million

  1Expansion of the Home Office press office followed an external consultant's review of its staffing and operation in 1999 and recommended the creation of the Newsdesk so as to better meet the demands of the media. This improved efficiency from "losing' in excess of 20 per cent. of the calls pre expansion, to a position where from June 2003 to June 2004 91.8 per cent. of the 67,070 press calls received by the Newsdesk were answered.

  2The Home Office press office and the prison service press office merged in May 2001.

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what review has been made of his Department's definition of domestic violence as promised in the Summary of responses to Safety and Justice: The Government's proposals on domestic violence. [178815]

  Paul Goggins
  A review was undertaken within the context of work to address the specific needs of minority communities. The definition has been widened to incorporate violence by family members as well as between adults who are, or were, intimate partners. This was done to ensure that those issues of chief concern to BME communities, such as so-called "honour crimes" are properly reflected.

  Following the review, a common Government definition of domestic violence was agreed. It follows the definition used by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and is:
  1508W
  "Any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality."

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department expects to complete its research into the links between domestic violence and substance misuse. [178821]

  Caroline Flint
  Research into the links between substance abuse and domestic violence has been commissioned and is being undertaken by the School of Health and Social Studies at the University of Warwick. We expect the research to be completed by the autumn.

  Drug Dealers (Assets Seized)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total of assets seized from convicted drug dealers was in each of the last three years. [177831]

  Caroline Flint
  The information requested is not yet available for the year 2003–04. The total of assets confiscated from convicted drug dealers in each of the previous three years is as follows:

  Amount Confiscated(£)

  2000–2001

  11,757,000

  2001–2002

  11,873,000

  2002–2003

  20,905,000

  The total amount obtained from confiscation orders in each of these years is £19,833,000 in 2000–01; £20,609,000 in 2001–02; and £41,008,000 in 2002–03.

  Drugs Misuse (Rochdale)
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public funds were spent on tackling drugs misuse in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2003–04; and what percentage of funding in each case was targeted at the ethnic minority community.[178500]

  Caroline Flint
  Breakdown of financial allocation to local constituencies is not available in the form requested as funding is allocated to drug action team (DAT) area. In this case Rochdale DAT which covers Rochdale, Oldham East and Saddleworth and Heywood and Middleton.

  The period for 1997–98 is prior to the formation of the National Drug Strategy and there is no locally held information on funding available for that financial year. As a result it is not possible to provide information on the amount of funding targeted at black and ethnic minority communities at this time.

  In 2003–04 the total drugs allocation for Rochdale DAT was –1,869,000. In order to ensure consistency figures supplied are based on funding streams associated with the National Drug Strategy and are readily

  1509W
  verifiable. These funding streams are specifically targeted at tackling the harm caused to individuals, families and communities by the misuse of drugs. Other mainstream funding is made available at a local level, this varies and both in amount and origin as a result it is not possible to provide robust financial information.

  £

  2003–04

  Partnership capacity

  68,000

  Treatment pooled budget

  1,023,000

  Criminal Justice Interventions

  178,000

  Programme—capacity

  Through care after care

  62,000

  Building safer communities1

  297,000

  Young people

  241,000

  Total

  1,869,000

  1Contains non drug elements

  During 2003–04, there were three specific black and ethnic minority services provided in the Rochdale area.

  Two were funded by the DAT, the DAFAY project and a community interactors project, in total the funding amounted to £70,000. The DAFAY project works with young black and ethnic minorities on an outreach basis, offering one-to-one and group counselling services for substance misuse problems. The community interactors project has recruited six volunteers from local black and ethnic minority communities to provide drugs awareness to young people and parents and act as a liaison point between drugs services and the community. The third service, the EDEN project, works with adult black and ethnic minorities and is funded by the National Lottery Fund.

  All the services in the Rochdale area will work with black and ethnic minorities so a proportion of the total budget will be spent on black and ethnic minority communities, however this is difficult to quantify.

  Drugs Misuse
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public funds were spent on tackling drugs misuse in Stoke-on-Trent North in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2003–04. [177619]

  Caroline Flint
  Breakdown of financial allocation to local constituencies is not available in the form requested as funding is allocated to Drug Action Team (DAT) area. In this case Stoke on Trent DAT which covers Stoke on Trent North, Central and South.

  The period for 1997–98 is prior to the formation of the National Drug Strategy and there is no locally held information on funding available for that financial year.

  In 2003–04 the total drugs allocation for Stoke on Trent DAT was £2,039,718. In order to ensure consistency figures supplied are based on funding streams associated with the National Drug Strategy and are readily verifiable. These funding streams are specifically targeted at tackling the harm caused to individuals, families and communities by the misuse of drugs. Other mainstream funding is made available at a local level, this varies and both in amount and origin as a result it is not possible to provide robust financial information.
  1510W

  2003–04 (£)

  Partnership Capacity

  70,467

  Treatment Pooled Budget

  1,341,800

  Through Care After Care—Pump Priming

  35,000

  Building Safer Communities1

  397,891

  Young People

  194,560

  Total

  2,039,718

  1Contains non drug elements

  Durham Jail
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he last visited Durham jail; [176660]

  (2) when Durham jail was last inspected; [176662]

  (3) how many governors there have been at Durham jail since 1 May 1999; [176663]

  (4) what the average length of service at any one prison has been of the current governor of Durham jail; [176664]

  (5) how many prisoners absconded from Durham jail in each year since 1 January 1997;[176666]

  (6) how many hours of the prisoners' day at Durham jail was devoted to purposeful activity in the last year for which figures are available; [176670]

  (7) how many staff at Durham jail have been on sick leave in each month since 1 May 2003. [176671]

  Paul Goggins: The current Home Secretary has not visited Durham prison, however, as Minister for Correctional Services, I visited on 19 March 2004. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons last inspected Durham male prison between 19 and 22 August 2003 and the female prison between 5 and 9 January 2004. Mike Newell, has been the governing governor of Durham prison since May 1999, prior to that he was governor of Hull prison between March 1996 and May 1999. Since January 1997 there have been no escapes or absconds from Durham. Data show that each prisoner had an average of 18 hours purposeful activity each week.

  In the last 12 months the following numbers of staff have been on sick leave each month:

  Number

  May 2003

  89

  June 2003

  87

  July 2003

  97

  August 2003

  106

  September 2003

  100

  October 2003

  125

  November 2003

  115

  December 2003

  103

  January 2004

  118

  February 2004

  100

  March 2004

  102

  April 2004

  96

  Entry Clearance
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce proposals on the entry of(a) priests and (b) imams to the UK. [180167]
  1511W
  Mr. Browne
  We are currently consulting faith communities on a package of proposals, including modernising the arrangements governing entry to the UK by overseas Ministers of Religion. The details of the new arrangements will be announced shortly.

  Everim Ciftci
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to process Mrs. Everim Ciftci's application, reference 21004974, for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [179573]

  Mr. Browne
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 24 June 2004.

  Forensic Science
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes in Lancashire have been investigated by(a) the Forensic Science Services and (b) a private company in the last 12 months. [179518]

  Ms Blears
  In the year 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004, the number of crimes committed in Lancashire in which some forensic analysis was provided by either the Forensic Science Service or some other private sector organisation was as follows:

  Number

  Forensic Science Service examinations

  2,314

  Other agencies

  1,980

  G8 Summit
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Home Office will be responsible for security arrangements at the G8 Summit in 2005. [178137]

  Ms Blears
  Overall operational planning and co-ordination for security at the 2005 G8 Summit will be undertaken by the Chief Constable, Tayside Police. Assistance will be provided by a number of other forces and police units, as well as central Government Departments and Agencies, including the Home Office.

  Green Burials
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial incentives exist to encourage the use of ecologically-friendly green burials involving the use of freeze-drying human remains and burying them in environmentally-friendly coffins. [178712]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government believe that the public should have a realistic and fair choice in the funeral arrangements for their relatives, and it does not therefore, provide financial incentives for one form of disposal over another. However, as outlined in the current consultation exercise "Burial law and policy in the 21st Century: the need for a sensitive and sustainable approach", sustainability is an important issue. We understand that the system of freeze-drying remains is still awaiting approval for use in Sweden, where the system was created. Nevertheless, the development of alternatives to the traditional choices of burial or 1512W
  cremation, and particularly alternatives which are more environmentally friendly, should be given careful consideration.

  High Speed Pursuits
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent guidance he has issued to chief constables concerning high speed pursuits. [179226]

  Caroline Flint
  The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) launched in March new guidance for the management of pursuits. I welcome this.

  The ACPO guidance, produced in consultation with the Police Complaints Authority (now the Independent Police Complaints Commission), is designed to help ensure that pursuits can be resolved quickly and safely for everyone involved. It will help ensure development of a coherent policy that maximises safety for all those involved. Its guidelines stress the importance of considering each pursuit individually, according to the developing circumstances, with decisions being made on the basis of the changing information available. The guidance fully recognises that there may be occasions when it is better to discontinue a pursuit on the grounds of public safety.

  Work continues to ensure that the correct training is provided in the police service, that there are adequate management controls, and that robust risk assessments are in place to ensure that safety is maintained at all times.

  Holloway Prison (Suicides)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of(a) self-harm, (b) suicide and (c) attempted suicide have been recorded at HM Prison Holloway in each of the past five years; and what discussions he has held with the governor and staff concerning these figures. [179693]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested about self-inflicted deaths and self-harm is provided in the following table. Suicidal intent is not easy to establish. The reasons why people self-injure are highly complex, and it is difficult to distinguish between acts of self-harm that were attempts at ending life, and those that occurred for other reasons. It is not possible, therefore, for the Prison Service to determine from the general figures recording incidents of self-harm those acts that could be described as attempts at suicide. The figures for self-harm in the table therefore include all acts of self-harm, however serious.

  Number of self-inflicted deaths1

  Number of recorded incidents of self-harm2

  1999

  2

  248

  2000

  1

  122

  2001

  1

  542

  2002

  1

  765

  2003

  0

  3851

  1The Prison Service employs the term "self-inflicted death" rather than suicide. This includes all those deaths where it appears the person acted intentionally to take his/her own life.

  2The figures provided are number of incidents of self-harm, not number of individuals.
  1513W
  3In December 2002, a new form for reporting self-injury (the F213SH) was introduced across the prisons estate in England and Wales, which is known to have improved reporting practices. Please note therefore that much of the increase in reported self-harm in 2003 may result from the change in reporting procedures rather than reflect an actual increase in incidence of self-harm.

  In 2004 to 16 June, there have been two apparently self-inflicted deaths at Holloway; the number of incidents of self-harm is not yet available.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, visited Holloway in April 2004, and I visited the establishment in October 2003. We both had the opportunity to talk with the Governor, with a number of prison staff from a variety of disciplines, and with groups of prisoners. It was clear from our wide-ranging discussions that Holloway is dealing with a large number of vulnerable women, many of whom enter custody already struggling to cope with a wide range of difficult issues that increase their likelihood of suicide and self-harm. These include mental health, drug and alcohol problems; histories of abuse, troubled relationships and social exclusion; as well as past experiences of self-harm.

  Both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I were impressed with Holloway's First Night in Custody Project, which focuses on the needs of women at the vulnerable stage of entry into prison. The Project was set up in October 2000 and is run by the Prisoner Advice and Care Trust. It employs a full-time project worker and two link workers to help identify women at risk of self-harm or suicide. The project sees over 100 prisoners a month and makes referrals to services in and outside the prison on housing needs, mental health problems, drug or alcohol problems.

  Holloway is also one of the three prisons currently piloting Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT), an innovative programme developed for women with 'borderline personality disorder' who also self-harm or engage in suicidal behaviours.

  Number of persons proceeded against and those found guilty of offences under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, England and Wales 1997 to 2002

  Offence description

  Statute

  Persons1 proceeded against

  Number of offences involved

  Persons1 found guilty

  Persons1 fined

  Persons1 not separately dealt with2

  Employing a person subject to immigration control who has attained the age of 16

  Asylum aid Immigration Act 1996 section 8.

  1997

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1998

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1999

  4

  23

  1

  1

  —

  2000

  10

  32

  4

  4

  —

  2001

  5

  65

  1

  1

  —

  2002

  2

  22

  1

  1

  —

  1 Principle immigration offence basis.

  2 Indicates that a substantive penalty has been imposed on non-immigration offence dealt with at the same time.

  1514W
  20 safer cells are to be installed at Holloway by October 2005. Safer cells, which are manufactured and installed to make the attachment of ligatures very difficult, have been found effective in preventing impulsive suicide attempts.

  Across the prisons estate, women prisoners are to benefit from a specifically targeted and separate suicide prevention and self-harm management strategy being developed for them. This draws upon specialist knowledge of suicidal behaviour among women prisoners, and builds upon a number of interventions including: individual crisis counselling for women prisoners who self-harm; the continued development and evaluation of DBT; investment and planning to ensure progress on the detoxification strategy in women's prisons; and the introduction of a new training pack for all staff working with women in custody, which includes a module on the health and well-being of women prisoners. £1 million from the Department of Health has been allocated to women's prisons to be spent on the recruitment of psychiatric nurses.

  Illegal Immigrants (Employers)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employers have been fined for employing illegal immigrants under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 in each year since 1997. [177843]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of employers in the UK who were prosecuted for employing illegal immigrants is not available and therefore information on the numbers of these employers successfully prosecuted is not available.

  However information on persons proceeded against for employing a person subject to immigration control under section 8 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1996, together with the penalties imposed, is shown in the table.

  Information on those people proceeded against under the Immigration Acts between 1997 and 2002 was published on 27 November 2003 in the command paper "Control of Immigration:
  Statistics United Kingdom 2002" (Cm 6053), a copy of which can be found in the Library of the House. Comparable statistics for 2003 will be published later this year in the command paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2003".

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome was of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held on 8 June; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [178898]

  Caroline Flint
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council in Luxembourg on 8 June.

  Police and Judicial co-operation

  Further to the European Council Declaration on Terrorism the JHA Council noted a number of papers, including a draft report to the European Council on the implementation of previously agreed instruments; a draft Action Plan listing the actions to be taken by who within the EU and by when; and two discussion papers by the Counter Terrorism Co-ordinator, Gijs de Vries. The Council also adopted Council Conclusions noting action taken since the European Council and requesting further work.

  Along with the majority of other member states I supported the report on intelligence capacities by the Secretary General Javier Solana. In addition I set out the UK's five priorities on practical Counter-terrorist co-operation. Firstly, that all member states should be able to exchange information through the Visa Information System. Secondly/that there needed to be interoperability between EU and national databases. Thirdly, that all member states should be actively involved with the European Borders Agency. Fourthly, that all member states need to include biometrics in passports and, finally, that the EU needs to find a way of taking action on security measures on ID cards.

  Commissioner Vitorino then presented the Communication on the implementation of measures agreed at the Tampere Council in 1999 and highlighting the positive work done, notably on migration and counter-terrorism. Emphasising that the new College and JHA Commissioner would have their own views on the future JHA programme, Vitorino identified integration of the new member states into Schengen, and action at the EU's external border to combat illegal immigration and trafficking as important areas for future JHA action. He also saw a need for further work on common standards for criminal procedural law, on data protection and on rules on evidence in cross-border prosecutions. Finally, he identified the need for better evaluation and implementation of adopted legislation.

  A minority of member states then gave initial reactions to the document and set out some of their priorities. The Netherlands indicated that they expected the June European Council to task the JHA Council with developing an appropriate response to the Commission's Communication. They therefore asked for written comments from member states and indicated that there would be further Ministerial discussion of the Communication at the July JHA Council.

  The Council reached a general approach on the Framework Decision on mutual recognition of confiscation orders. The Presidency commended work
  1516W
  done so far to prepare the future EU drugs strategy 2005–12. There was no decision on who should be the director of Europol

  Under Any Other Business Germany noted that all member states were welcome to join the recent common declaration by Germany, the Benelux countries and Austria on efforts to improve practical law enforcement co-operation. Immigration and Asylum

  Following agreement, welcome to the UK, that it could be used by member states to support resettlement schemes the Council reached agreement on the Council Decision to establish the European Refugee Fund.

  In addition, the Council adopted the Council Decision establishing the Visa Information System and Council Conclusions setting out the elements for establishing preparatory actions for a financial instrument for managing returns. A General Approach was reached on the Council Recommendation on facilitating the admission to the EU of scientific researchers.

  The Commission presented two Communications. The first on the links between legal and illegal migration focused on economic migration, bilateral labour agreements and regularisation measures but concluded that the impact of legal migration measures on illegal immigration was impossible to quantify.

  The Commission indicated that, later this year, they planned to issue a Green Paper on the extent to which the admission of economic migrants should be regulated at EU level, but noted that there was no consensus on the (Italian Presidency's) idea of an EU migration quota.

  The second communication on the entry to the EU of people in need of international protection focused on enhancing protection capacity in the regions of origin and resettlement in the EU.

  I welcomed the Communication and made clear that although our earlier proposals on zones of protection had been a useful contribution to the debate, our thinking had moved on and we were no longer pushing them. Two other member states intervened: one to support the communication and the second to oppose. The Presidency therefore concluded that there would be further debate at the July JHA Council.

  During the Mixed Committee the Presidency sought views on whether the draft Regulation on standards for security features and biometrics in passports should require one or two mandatory biometric identifiers, and whether the second identifier—be it mandatory or optional—should be fingerprints. I pointed out that the UK is currently running trials of the different technologies and that it would be better to wait for the results before deciding what the second identifier should be. Although two other member states supported me, a majority supported fingerprints as a second indicator although there was no consensus as to whether this should be mandatory. The Presidency concluded that further work should proceed on the basis of one mandatory biometric identifier, the facial image, and a second optional indicator, namely fingerprints.
  1517W
  In the margins of the Council Ministers agreed an intergovernmental resolution calling for certain linguistic changes to be made to member states' passports to take account of EU enlargement and calling on the new member states to start issuing EU formatted passports from 1 January 2007.

  Finally, the list of A points as in 10120/04 PTS A 28 was adopted. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Percentage

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  2002–2003

  2003–2004

  Barking and Dagenham

  19.1

  14.3

  13.3

  13.5

  17.6

  16.8

  Barnet

  22.2

  16.1

  17.3

  16.6

  13.3

  13.6

  Bexley

  17.4

  13.7

  12.6

  12.5

  14.8

  15.3

  Brent

  20.6

  13.1

  12.4

  13.9

  12.1

  14.5

  Bromley

  20.3

  14.0

  12.9

  13.4

  14.1

  16.5

  Camden

  23.3

  16.4

  14.4

  12.2

  13.5

  16.6

  Croydon

  21.8

  16.1

  16.5

  13.8

  14.3

  14.7

  Ealing

  23.1

  17.5

  15.5

  16.4

  17.3

  15.8

  Enfield

  21.6

  13.0

  15.1

  13.1

  15.4

  14.5

  Greenwich

  23.0

  19.5

  19.4

  16.4

  13.9

  13.2

  Hackney

  22.5

  15.0

  13.8

  14.9

  14.8

  13.3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  21.0

  15.0

  14.0

  14.8

  13.7

  16.3

  Haringey

  22.0

  22.2

  23.0

  19.2

  22.5

  20.4

  Harrow

  26.3

  18.0

  17.1

  14.3

  14.2

  14.5

  Havering

  24.2

  17.7

  14.5

  15.1

  16.3

  16.3

  Heathrow Airport

  35.4

  27.6

  29.9

  26.8

  25.5

  26.4

  Hillingdon

  16.8

  11.9

  11.8

  11.9

  13.1

  15.0

  Hounslow

  18.3

  13.5

  14.0

  13.2

  13.8

  15.1

  Islington

  21 2

  14.8

  16.4

  14.5

  12.1

  15.2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  21.6

  13.2

  13.3

  15.6

  17.3

  17.1

  Kingston upon Thames

  27.0

  20.8

  18.0

  17.2

  14.8

  14.1

  Lambeth

  18.2

  12.8

  10.9

  9.0

  11.6

  15.5

  Lewisham

  20.9

  19.0

  19.5

  17.7

  16.9

  16.5

  Merton

  18.5

  15.8

  14.4

  13.8

  11.9

  17.3

  Newham

  18.5

  13.9

  13.8

  14.0

  13.9

  13.8

  Redbridge

  19.5

  12.3

  11.7

  10.3

  11.2

  14.3

  Richmond upon Thames

  15.7

  14.0

  13.8

  14.5

  14.9

  13.5

  Southwark

  25.7

  18.5

  15.0

  13.3

  12.6

  13.1

  Sutton

  26.1

  19.8

  19.0

  16.1

  16.1

  15.2

  Tower Hamlets

  22.9

  16.5

  13.9

  12.6

  11.8

  11.8

  Waltham Forest

  24.0

  19.2

  17.3

  13.3

  13.3

  13.7

  Wandsworth

  15.2

  12.9

  12.0

  12.5

  17.1

  15.8

  Westminster

  22.9

  16.5

  14.5

  13.8

  14.3

  17.6

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who would be responsible, in the event of the closure of the National Neighbourhood Watch Association, for running a national support network for the Neighbourhood Watch movement; and if he will make a statement. [178572]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office has made contingency arrangements for the Crime Reduction Centre to provide website and telephone advice in the event of the National Neighbourhood Watch Association's closure.

  In the longer term, all the stakeholders that make up the Neighbourhood Watch partnership: the Police, community safety departments in local authorities and the many members of Neighbourhood Watch schemes should have a say in how any future support network should be run.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are planned for the data used by local neighbourhood watch associations

  Metropolitan Police
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the crime clear-up rates in the Metropolitan Police Force area were in each of the last six years, broken down by London borough. [177181]

  Ms Blears
  Clear up rates in the Metropolitan Police Force area are as set out in the following table.

  held by the National Neighbourhood Watch Association (NNWA) in the event that the NNWA is dissolved. [179349]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office has not had any discussions with the National Neighbourhood Watch Association (NNWA) about any data it holds.

  No arrangements are planned, but the Home Office is willing to discuss this matter with NNWA or neighbourhood watch associations.

  North London Mosque
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 12 May 2004,Official Report, column 351W, on North London Mosque, what arrangements were in place to ensure that accurate translation of the preaching delivered was obtained. [178692]

  Caroline Flint
  The Commissioner for the Metropolis reports that the preaching outside the North London Mosque is generally conducted in English. However, arrangements are in place to translate material collected by police evidence gathering teams.

  Operation Hartley (South-West)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Operation Hartley on the bearing down on illegal raves and festivals in the south west; and what action has so far taken place, including the number of arrests. [177956]

  Caroline Flint
  Avon and Somerset police inform me that Operation Hartley is an initiative operating across Avon and Somerset, Wiltshire, Dorset, Gloucestershire and Devon and Cornwall police forces areas. It is designed to proactively target organisers of illegal raves and music festivals and to provide a rapid and co-ordinated response to illegal raves. The aim of the operation is, where possible, to prevent illegal raves taking place thereby minimising disruption and nuisance caused to local communities.

  It involves a combined intelligence gathering initiative and an agreed protocol to allow the pooling of police resources, where appropriate, to ensure rapid and effective enforcement action. The number of arrests already made is not yet available.

  Overseas Doctors
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant overseas doctors in training working in the NHS permit-free postgraduate training status for a minimum period of one year, or for the duration of their post, whichever is longer. [179810]

  Mr. Browne
  Overseas doctors applying to carry out postgraduate training in the United Kingdom are already granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for the duration of their post or the duration recommended by the Postgraduate Dean, up to a maximum of 12 months or three years depending on whether they are eligible for provisional or full registration with the General Medical Council. It would then be open to them to apply for further leave, up to the maximum permitted in the Immigration Rules.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the question of the hon. Member for Woking, reference 177009. [179499]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 18 June 2004]: I replied to the hon. Member on 22 June 2004, Official Report, column, 1380W.

  Police
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were assaulted while on duty in Lincolnshire in each year since 1997. [179433]

  Ms Blears
  The available information relates to recorded offences of assault on a constable and is given in the table. Statistics are not available prior to 1998–99.

  Recorded offences of assault on a constable in Lincolnshire

  Number

  1998–99

  268

  1999–2000

  223

  2000–01

  178

  2001–02

  218

  2002–03

  281

  1520W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reasons are for the proposals(a) to remove the requirement for an inspector to be in charge of searches under code B of the Police and Criminal Evidence codes and (b) to remove the requirement for the arresting officer presence to justify arrest or detention under code C of the codes. [177778]

  Ms Blears
  The in formation is as follows:

  (a) In the August 2004 edition of the Codes it is proposed to remove the legislative requirement for an officer of Inspector rank to be in charge of searches under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Schedule 1 or the Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 5. This change will provide consistency with other parts of the Codes whereby the officer in charge of the search is the senior officer present (See Code B, 2F). Searches in the categories specified will not always require supervision by an officer of Inspector rank and judgements about the necessary level of supervision need to be made in each individual case

  (b) It is proposed that the following paragraph be inserted into Code C, paragraph 3.4: "If the arresting officer is not physically present when the detainee is brought to a police station, the arresting officer's account must be made available to the custody officer remotely or by a third party on the arresting officer's behalf".

  This new provision will enable officers to remain on front-line duties without being taken "off the street" to travel to and from the police station. It will also enable greater use of designated detention officers under sections 38 and 39 of the Police Reform Act 2002. The Code does not currently require the arresting officer to be present at the point at which the suspect is brought before the custody officer.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the number of day visitors used in the calculation of the Police Grant (England and Wales) 2004–05 for Avon and Somerset constabulary was; [179314]

  (2) how many day visitors to Bristol Airport are counted in the number used for the purposes of calculating the Police Grant (England and Wales) 2004—05 for Avon and Somerset constabulary. [179315]

  Ms Blears
  The annual number of day visitors used in calculation of Police Grant 2004–05 for Avon and Somerset was 38,515, 000. This number includes visitors to Bristol airport, but figures are not routinely held at levels of geographical detail below that of the police authority.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how police numbers in Crosby have changed in each year since 1997. [177947]

  Ms Blears
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 10 March 2004,Official Report, column 1588W. This remains the latest data available. I do not expect information on Basic Command Unit strength for 31 March 2004 to be available for publication until the autumn.

  Prisons
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what audit of privately designed, constructed, managed and financed prisons run under private finance initiatives has been carried out in the last two years. [179149]

  Paul Goggins
  The National Audit Office carried out a review of privately designed, constructed, managed and financed prisons and published their findings in "The Operational Performance of PFI Prisons" (Ref.: HC 700 2002–2003, ISBN 0102921725).

  The Prison Service Standards Audit Unit audit every privately operated prison against agreed prison and security standards on a two year rolling programme.

  Private prisons are overseen by Home Office Controllers who undertake regular internal audit programmes.

  Each of the private prison operators have there own quality assurance team that completes audits and reviews of the prison regime and in security procedures.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of(a) Garth and (b) Wymott Prisons in Chorley; and whether these prisons will remain in-house. [179517]

  Paul Goggins
  There are no current plans to change the role or status of either of these establishments.

  Probation Programmes
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has evaluated on the completion rates on probation-accredited programmes where case management and programme work is integrated. [178798]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 21 June 2004]: The Home Office's Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (RDS) has evaluated one study that looked at the relationship between case management and accredited programme completion in the Probation Service. The research was conducted by Oxford University and it was managed and published by the National Probation Directorate in 2004. The published findings "Think First in the community: attendance, attrition and outcomes for participants" are available on the National Probation Service website (www. probation. homeoffice.gov.uk)

  The research found that completion of the Think First programme was better when case management involved intense supervision before the start of the programme, frequent contact after completion, support with personal problems and help in using what had been learnt.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether approval for enhanced community punishment accredited programmes was given on the basis that case management and programme work were integrated. [178800]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 21 June 2004]: Enhanced Community Punishment (ECP) was provisionally accredited by the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel and rolled out throughout England
  1522W
  and Wales in October 2003. All Community Punishment Orders are now delivered in the form of Enhanced Community Punishment. The order requires an offender to do unpaid work while maximising the scope for learning in order to change the offender's behaviour.

  Integrated case management is a key feature of ECP. It requires there to be structured communication between the people involved in delivering the different components of an order. This structured liaison and integration has been approved by the Accreditation Panel.

  Road Fund Licence
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether constabularies in England and Wales have the authority to instigate prosecution against foreign nationals who are driving vehicles registered in another EU country that do not have a current road fund licence. [178948]

  Caroline Flint
  Foreign registered vehicles which are brought into the UK temporarily by overseas residents are usually exempt from UK licensing and registration.

  As regards vehicles registered within the European Union, this exemption stems from Directive 83/182. This provides that a visitor may use a vehicle which is registered and fully tax paid in its home member state for up to six months in 12, without being subject to the domestic registration and taxation requirements of the host state.

  To qualify for the exemption, visitors must have their normal residence outside the host state. It falls to vehicle keepers to satisfy the police or other enforcement authority that they are entitled to exemption from UK registration and licensing. Should they fail to do so, the normal prosecution process will follow.

  Secure Training Centres
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times restraint has been used on children in each of the secure training centres in each of the last five years. [176784]

  Paul Goggins
  The table shows how many times restraint has been used in each secure training centre. The figures given cover the period since the centre opened, with the exception of Medway (which opened in September 1998), where data is available from January 2000. Hassockfield opened in September 1999 and Rainsbrook in July 1999.

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Medway

  n/a

  703

  845

  814

  1611

  702

  Hassockfield

  220

  694

  820

  825

  922

  341

  Rainsbrook

  286

  582

  465

  822

  756

  185

  Only certified custody officers who have completed a course of instruction delivered by approved trainers may take part in restraints in Secure Training Centres. They are required to attend regular refresher courses to maintain their certification.

  Somalia
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the rule 39 order made by the European Court of Human Rights to suspend removals from the Netherlands to Somalia pending determination of a challenge to such removals in application 15243/04; and if he will review his decision to commence removals of failed asylum seekers to Somalia. [179910]

  Mr. Browne
  The interim order made by the European Court of Human Rights to the Dutch Government under rule 39 applied only to the applicant in that specific case. The interim order means that the applicant cannot be removed to Somalia before the European Court of Human Rights has given a decision on the applicant's case.

  As with applications from all nationalities, each asylum (and human rights) claim made by someone from Somalia is considered by the Home Office on its individual merits, in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Individual asylum seekers found by both the Home Office and the Independent Appellate Authority, not to be at risk of persecution and not in need of humanitarian protection are considered for removal on a case-by-case basis. The Home Office will not return vulnerable groups and will only enforce the return of those Somalis it is satisfied are not in need of protection.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received regarding the fate of Maxamed Yahye Ahmed following his removal to Mogadishu by the Danish authorities. [179912]

  Mr. Browne
  The Danish Immigration Service has informed us that Maxamed Yalye Ahmed was returned voluntarily to Yemen by the Danish authorities. It is not known whether he subsequently chose to travel to Somalia.

  Special Branch
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Special Branch officers were employed in each of the last five years, broken down by police force area. [177174]

  Ms Blears
  Published information on police strength by Police Force area is available for rank, gender and ethnicity but not function.

  Figures on police strength are published in Home Office statistical bulletins, copies of which can be found in the Library or on the internet site www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  The latest published data on settlement in the United Kingdom are published in the Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2002" (Cm6053), available from the Library and from the Home Office website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hobpubs1.html The 2003 edition is due to be published later this year.

  UK Passport Service Pilot Project
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the UK Passport Service pilot project was postponed; whether an independent assessment of the project's results will be carried out; and what criteria will be used when assessing the project's results. [177926]

  Mr. Browne
  The start of the biometric enrolment trial was delayed by two months; it went live in April 2004. The delay was caused by the need to correct initial problems and then retest the equipment. The trial is now fully rolled out and functioning at its four fixed sites and is expected to run for around six months when United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) will have enrolled 10,000 people.

  A mobile enrolment unit will also be deployed from the end of June.

  UKPS has retained the services of an expert in the field of biometrics from the National Physical Laboratory as its independent assessor of the progress and outcomes of the trial.

  The trial is testing the practical aspects of recording of biometrics and public reactions to the enrolment process. The results will be used to inform future designs of UKPS systems and processes

  UK Settlement
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been admitted to the Uk as(a) husbands and (b) wives in each year since 1979, broken down by country of origin. [177092]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: The latest available data relating to the number of passengers admitted to the UK as a husband or wife are shown in the following tables. The information available is broken down by the applicant's nationality, not the country of origin.

  To provide data for the entire period requested would incur disproportionate cost.

  A copy of the table has been placed in the House Library.

  Historical data on immigration control can be found in the Command Papers "Control of Immigration: Statistics United kingdom", copies of which are available from the Library of the House.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many appeals were determined by(a) the Immigration Appellate Authority and (b) the Immigration Appeals Tribunal in each year since 1997; and at what cost. [180113]
  1525W
  Mr. Lammy
  Information requested relating to the total number of appeal disposals, and the joint operational running costs, for the Immigration Adjudicators, and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAT), is provided in the following table:

  Financial year

  IAA Adjudicator appeal disposals

  IAT appeal disposal

  Operational running cost (£ million)

  1997–98

  35,486

  2,435

  12.6

  1998–99

  39,743

  1,900

  14.0

  1999–2000

  24,440

  3,176

  16.1

  2000–01

  34,226

  3,118

  35.4

  2001–02

  61,816

  4,396

  51.2

  2002–03

  92,941

  7,189

  92.9

  2003–04

  110,223

  11,171

  90.2

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Sanctions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what evaluation his Department has made of the effect of benefit sanctions. [177545]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the written statement I gave on 5 February 2004,Official Report, column 44WS.

  Community Service Orders
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have lost benefit as a result of breaching their community service orders; and what the average loss of benefit has been, broken down by claimants of(a) income support, (b) jobseeker's allowance and (c) training allowances. [177537]

  Mr. Pond
  In the period 15 October 2001 to 15 May 2004, 1,789 individuals have been sanctioned as a result of the court finding them in breach of their community order.

  1,007 offenders have received a 100 per cent. sanction on jobseeker's allowance with an estimated average weekly loss of benefit at 20 February 2004 of £31.17 per person.

  743 people have received a sanction on income support with a 40 per cent. reduction and 39 have received a sanction on income support with a 20 per cent. reduction. The average weekly loss of benefit for the IS claimants at 20 February 2004 was £17.31 per person.

  None of these claimants were in receipt of training allowance.

  Notes:

  1. The figures presented regarding loss of benefit in monetary terms have been estimated using information from the Departmental Central Index (DCI). It is tot possible to determine the actual reduction in all cases.

  2. The average loss of benefit should therefore be used as a guide to loss of benefit for individual offenders only.

  Source:

  Information Centre—IAD, DWP

  Lone Parents (Benefits)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents are in receipt of income support; and how many of these lone parents are also in receipt of a disability benefit in respect of(a) themselves and (b) their children. [178862]

  Mr. Pond
  At November 2003, there were 934,400 single parents in receipt of income support; of these, 62,200 also received disability living allowance (DLA) to help with the extra costs associated with their disability, and 60,900 received DLA in respect of a child's disability.

  Notes:

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

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands.

  3. A single parent is defined as a single person aged under 60 with dependants aged 0–18.

  4. DLA includes both DLA care and mobility.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample Client Group Analysis.

  Sure Start Maternity Grant
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many mothers in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale have taken up the Sure Start maternity grant; and what percentage of those were of Asian origin.[178535]

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

  Sure Start maternity grants for West Pennine social fund district

  Applications

  Awards

  2000–01

  1,807

  1,591

  2001–02

  2,363

  1,794

  2002 (to December)

  2,213

  1,689

  Sure Start maternity grants for area covered by Oldham and Rochdale jobcentre plus district

  Applications

  Awards

  2003 (January)

  Not available

  325

  2003 (February and March)

  682

  435

  2003–04

  4,251

  3,059

  2004 (April and May)

  653

  494

  Notes:

  1. Data is not available by parliamentary constituency.

  2. Rochdale parliamentary constituency used to be part of West Pennine Social Fund District and is now part of Oldham and Rochdale Jobcentre Plus District. The latter was formed in January 2003 from part of Oldham Social Fund District and part of West Pennine Social Fund District. The two areas for which data is given above are different and the data is not comparable.

  3. Sure Start Maternity Grants were introduced on 27 March 2000. The very small number of cases for 1999–2000 have been excluded for data protection reasons.

  4. Data is given for all applications and awards, irrespective of whether the application was made by the mother or her partner.

  5. Data is not collected on the ethnic origin of Sure Start Maternity Grant applicants.

  Source:

  DWP Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Indian Ocean Territories
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what income of the British Indian Ocean Territories is disbursed(a) as administrative costs, (b) to support the security of US facilities on Diego Garcia and (c) to support the welfare of the Chagos Islanders. [180347]

  Mr. Rammell
  The revenues of the Government of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) are disbursed on the protection and management of the BIOT Fisheries (Conservation and Management) Zone, and the BIOT civil administration. There are no disbursements to support the security of the US Defence Facility or to support the welfare of members of the Chagossian communities in Mauritius, Seychelles and elsewhere.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the recognised population of the British Indian Ocean Territories is; and what information he holds on where they are domiciled. [180348]

  Mr. Rammell
  There is currently no settled population in the British Indian Ocean Territory. There are no official figures for the number of persons outside the Territory who could be regarded as Chagossians either by virtue of birth there or immediate descent from a person born there. The majority of them reside in Mauritius but there are smaller numbers in Seychelles and elsewhere, e.g. in the United Kingdom.

  Burma
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Burmese Government, citing Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions, on its treatment of the civilian populations of the Karen, Karenni and Shan peoples. [180020]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly raise our concerns on human rights in Burma with the Burmese regime including the suffering of ethnic groups such as Karen, Karenni and Shan peoples, most recently when I met the Burmese Ambassador on 1 June.

  We look to the Burmese authorities to respect and abide by the principles of international law, including international humanitarian law, and notably all the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, to which Burma is a State Party.

  The UK co-sponsored a resolution which was unanimously adopted at the UN Commission on Human Rights on 21 April that condemned human rights violations suffered by ethnic groups in Burma. The Resolution called on the regime to consider as a matter of high priority becoming party to the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions, of 12 August 1949.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will recognise as genocide the actions of the Burmese Government against the Karen, Karenni and Shan peoples. [180021]
  1528W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government are one of the strongest critics of the Burmese regime's violations of human rights. There is a consistent pattern of serious violations over many years, particularly against the ethnic groups. However, the term "genocide" has a specific meaning under international law. The United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma, Professor Sergio Pinheiro, who has visited Burma several times does not use the term to describe the situation there nor do major international NGOs, who monitor the situation in the country.

  Chagos Islands
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what circumstances civilians are allowed to visit the Chagos Islands; and if he will make a statement. [180349]

  Mr. Rammell
  Under the 1976 United Kingdom/United States Exchange of Notes concerning the US Defence Facility on Diego Garcia, access to Diego Garcia is in general restricted to members of the Forces of the United Kingdom and of the United States, the Commissioner and public officers in the service of the British Indian Ocean Territory, representatives of the Government of the United Kingdom and of the United States and, subject to normal immigration requirements, contractor personnel. The United Kingdom Government reserves the right, after consultation with the appropriate United States administrative authorities, to grant access to members of scientific parties wishing to carry out research on Diego Garcia and its environs, provided that such research does not unreasonably interfere with the activities of the facility. Access is not to be granted to any other person without prior consultation between the appropriate administrative authorities of the two Governments.

  Under the immigration law of the British Indian Ocean Territory, all persons other than members of the United Kingdom or United States armed forces and Government officials require a permit to visit any part of the Territory, including both Diego Garcia and the outer islands. Such permits are not generally granted except in connection n with official business or on compassionate grounds. However, private yachts are allowed to call in at the outer islands without a permit provided that the crews do not stay ashore overnight.

  Civil Service Relocation
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants and what percentage of the total Civil Service workforce in his Department will be relocated over the next five years(a) cutside the M25, (b) to the West Midlands and (c) to Staffordshire.[180177]

  Mr. Rammell
  Detailed Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) relocation plans were set out in the Lyons report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. 456 staff will relocate to the FCO Milton Keynes site over the next five years, which represents 12 per cent. of FCO central London staffing levels.

  Correspondence
  Sir Gerald Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common wealth Affairs when he will reply
  1529W
  to the letter to him dated 6 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mohammed Shafi. [178944]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary replied on 15 June.

  Death Certificates
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what charges his Department makes for issuing death certificates for individuals who die abroad; what plans he has to review these charges; and if he will make a statement. [179570]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no requirement under UK law for the death of a British national overseas to be recorded at one of our Posts. In many cases, the local authorities for the jurisdiction in which the death took place issue death certificates.

  However, if we are asked to do so the Statutory fee for registering a death at one of our Posts is £55 for the registration only. A copy of the entry costs an additional £35 per copy, if obtained through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and £8 per copy if obtained through the General Registry Office in Southport, Merseyside, after March of the succeeding year.

  It is established Government policy that the cost of consular services, which are laid before Parliament, should be set to cover the full costs involved in delivering the services and not subsidised by the taxpayer.

  There are no plans to review the costs at present.

  Honours List
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those individuals who are not UK citizens who since I May 1997 have been awarded honours, giving in each case(a) the date of the announcement, (b) the honour in question and (c) the rationale behind the honour. [180397]

  Mr. Straw
  During this period, approximately 700 honorary awards have been bestowed on foreign nationals who reside in the United Kingdom and overseas. Since honorary awards are not published in the New Year and Birthday lists, but are processed throughout the year, details are not readily available. Honorary awards are not necessarily announced since not all recipients desire publicity. Honours are awarded for services to British interests.

  To provide the detailed information requested would incur disproportionate costs.

  Indian Foreign Minister
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Indian Foreign Minister. [179905]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Indian Foreign Minister Mr. Natwar Singh on 16 June. This was the first Cabinet-level meeting between our two governments since the Indian General Election in April/May. The Foreign Secretary and Mr. Singh recognised the strength of our bilateral relations and emphasised their desire to enhance our 1530W
  engagement yet further. They also discussed a range of regional and global issues including: India/Pakistan relations, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nepal and South Asian regional co-operation.

  OSCE Conference
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conclusions were reached at the OSCE conference on racism and anti-semitism on 16–17 June in Paris; what practical steps he expects to be taken following the conference, with particular reference to the internet; and if he will make a statement. [180351]

  Mr. Rammell
  The OSCE Meeting on the Relationship between Racist, Xenophobic and anti-Semitic Propaganda on the Internet and Hate Crimes looked at a variety of methods to address this issue including monitoring, self-regulation, legislation, and raising awareness in the community and among young people. The views of participating states varied widely, particularly over the balance to be struck between freedom of expression and combating hate speech. We expect the final report of the conference to issue within a month. The report will be discussed at the OSCE's Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in October, along with the reports of the Anti-Semitism Conference held in Berlin in April and the Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination Conference held in Brussels in September. OSCE participating states are then likely to reach a decision on political commitments on tolerance at the Ministerial meeting due to be held in Sofia in December.

  Rwanda/Congo
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions(a) he, (b) members of his Department and (c) representatives of the Government have had with (i) members and representatives of the Government of Rwanda and (ii) representatives of non-governmental organisations regarding the closing of the border between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if he will make a statement. [179640]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn) have both spoken to President Kagame of Rwanda to express our concern over present tensions between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and to press for a peaceful solution to the crisis. I will be visiting both Rwanda and the DRC during the week commencing 21 June to reiterate these concerns. I hope to meet President Kabila and Kagame during this visit.

  Our Ambassadors in Kigali and Kinshasa remain in regular contact with their host Governments, and with NGO representatives, on the situation on and around the Rwanda/DRC border.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he
  1531W
  will be making to the Sudanese authorities concerning the seizure on 20 May of the guesthouse in Khartoum belonging to the Episcopal Church in Sudan. [179344]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our Embassy in Khartoum is in contact with the Christian Community about this case and have raised the matter with the Government of Sudan. The Episcopal Church in Sudan (ECS) requested a review of the court eviction order by the original judge and this has been accepted. The judge has also issued an injunction, as requested by the ECS, that nothing should be done to the guesthouse property while the court case is under way.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he will be making to the Government of Vietnam concerning the arrest of Rev. Nguyen Hong Quang in Ho Chi Minh City on 8 June. [180139]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are working with our EU colleagues in Vietnam to establish the circumstances surrounding the reported arrest on 8 June of Pastor Quang and to determine whether he should be added to the EU list of prisoners/detainees of concern whose cases are regularly raised with the Vietnamese authorities. A copy of this list was handed over to the Vietnamese during the EU-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue meeting on 22 June, attended by the British Ambassador to Vietnam.

TRANSPORT

  Motability Scheme
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cars receive road tax exemption through the Motability scheme; how much this exemption costs; what the financial value is of the exemption; how many of the exempted cars are registered to people aged 65 years and over; what plans he has to extend the exemptions to adapted cars bought by people disabled after their 65 birthday; and if he will estimate the cost of extending the exemptions. [178459]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This exemption cost the Exchequer an estimated £155 million in 2002–2003. It can be worth anything between £15 and £2,585 per annum depending on the type of vehicle concerned.

  There are currently around 375,000 vehicles in the Motability fleet (either contract hire or hire purchase). About 26 per cent. of these are in the 65+ age group.

  There are no plans to change the way the exemption works at present. However, the Chancellor keeps all taxation policy under review and any changes are announced in the context of his Budget statement after considering relevant economic, social and environmental factors.

  Air Transport White Paper
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Sustainable Development Commission's report on the Air Transport White Paper. [180215]
  1532W
  Mr. McNulty
  "The Future of Air Transport" White Paper sets out a balanced and measured approach between travel needs, economic benefits of new capacity, and the environmental effects of flying. More does need to be done to limit the environmental impacts of air travel. We recognise the importance of tackling climate change, and welcome the Commission's support for our approach to aviation participation in emissions trading. We are open to dialogue with the Commission, along with other stakeholders, as we work to deliver the White Paper.

  Crossrail
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the relative(a) cost-effectiveness, (b) value for money and (c) regeneration effect of the building of Crossrail with and without the Canary Wharf link to Abbey Wood via The Royals; when he expects to make a decision; and if he will make a statement. [179874]

  Mr. McNulty
  Such issues were all considered by the review chaired by Adrian Montague into the current Crossrail proposals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, is currently considering Adrian Montague's detailed advice and will publish his findings in due course.

  Emergency Vehicles (Speeding)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been spent, broken down by local authority, in dealing with speeding tickets issued to(a) fire service vehicles and (b) police vehicles. [177079]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information is not collected centrally on moneys spent in dealing with speeding tickets issued to fire service or police vehicles, nor on moneys paid out in fines as a result of fire service and police vehicles contravening speed limits.

  Haulage Sector (Emissions)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the emission levels of pollutants from the haulage sector were in each year since 1997, broken down by pollutant. [179926]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The emissions of the main pollutants, i.e. oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO) and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), for heavy goods vehicles (HGV's) are given in the following table from 1997 through to 2002, this being the latest date for which data are available. The emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a global warming gas, are also included.

  ktonnes

  Nox

  PM10

  CO

  NMVOC

  CO2

  1997

  339.4

  12.2

  68.4

  36.7

  26,739

  1998

  335.3

  11.4

  66.9

  34.0

  26,983

  1999

  323.5

  10.5

  63.8

  31.0

  26,830

  2000

  306.6

  9.1

  60.5

  28.6

  26,546

  2001

  293.4

  8.4

  57.2

  26.4

  27,417

  2002

  284.3

  7.8

  54.6

  24.5

  29,410

  Source:

  2002 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory.

  IT Equipment
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how often since 1997(a) his Department and (b) its associated public sector organisations have undergone portable appliance testing of IT equipment; and what the cost was of portable appliance testing in each year since 1997. [176915]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was formed in May 2002 and as a result the information provided relates to the period from then.

  In the Department's headquarters building Great Minster House in London portable appliance testing (PAT) is carried out annually and the latest available figures show expenditure of £19,016 and £15,005 excluding VAT for 2002 and 2003 respectively.

  Elsewhere in the Department's Agencies PAT testing of portable equipment is normally carried out on annual basis for non-IT equipment. IT equipment is sometimes included in these tests but in other situations the checking is undertaken by IT engineers as part of servicing arrangements.

  Comprehensive information on costs is not readily available because in some cases these are undifferentiated from other Mechanical and Electrical service contracts costs or are not accounted for separately in the individual finance systems. To separately identify such costs would involve disproportionate costs.

  PFI/PPP Schemes
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the private finance initiative/public private partnership schemes his Department has entered into that have been subject to refinancing deals, indicating in each case how much of the windfall gain has been repaid to the Government. [179062]

  Mr. McNulty
  Details of the refinancing arrangements on Government sponsored PFI projects were published on 31 March 2004,Official Report, column 1412W. The Department for Transport has also sponsored the following additional PFI and two PPP schemes that have been refinanced: Essex County Council A130 (PFI), London Underground£Tubelines (PPP), and National Air Traffic Control (PPP). Only the London Underground£Tubelines scheme generated a refranchising gain (£70 million), from which £42 million (60 per cent.) was repaid to Government.

  Secure Stations Scheme
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many crimes have been committed at stations that meet secure station status in each year since the scheme's inception. [176964]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Secure Stations scheme was launched in 1998 to improve security and perceptions of security at railway stations. It is a national accreditation scheme recognising set standards of good practice in rail station, staff and passenger security. The national scheme covers all overground and underground rail stations across England, Wales and Scotland, which are 1534W
  policed by the British Transport Police. The first stations were accredited in 1998 and the number of stations in the scheme continues to increase.

  The British Transport Police have provided the following information on crimes recorded at stations in the Secure Stations scheme for any given year in the period 2000–2004 when a station held accreditation. Data is not readily available for earlier than 2000.

  Crimes recorded at Secure Stations

  Number of Secure Stations

  2000–2001

  16,351

  84

  2001–2002

  22,735

  128

  2002–2003

  30,077

  167

  2003–2004

  31,815

  174

  Travel Costs
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 16 June 2004,Official Report, columns 936–37W, on travel costs, if he will provide analogous data for air travel costs between 1974 and 2003.[180019]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 22 June 2004]: The cost of air travel from 1996 to 2003 is shown in index form in the following table. This data is taken from the Consumer Price Index1, published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Note that these figures are not adjusted for inflation.

  The data between 1996 and 2000 are not comparable with data from 2001 onwards. Between 1996 and 2000, the index only includes the purchase of flights on the day of travel, and is not representative of all air travel.

  1Like the Retail Price Index (RPI), the Consumer Price Index (CPI) measures the average change from month to month in the prices of consumer goods and services. However it differs in the particular households it represents, the range of goods and services included, and the way the index is constructed.

  Index (1996=100)

  1996

  100.0

  1997

  103.3

  1998

  107.3

  1999

  109.0

  2000

  111.5

  2001

  121.5

  2002

  120.1

  2003

  114.0

  Source:

  Consumer Price Index, Office for National Statistics

  There is no information available prior to 1996 on the overall cost of air travel.

  Vehicle Operator Services Agency
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in relation to the monitoring mechanisms for pay harmonisation and pay equalisation referred to in the business case submitted prior to the merger of the former Vehicle Inspectorate and the Traffic Area Network into the new Vehicle Operator Services Agency (VOSA); and if he will make
  1535W
  a statement on the decision not to fund centrally the cost of pay equalisation and pay harmonisation during the creation of VOSA. [180388]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Pay harmonisation is being achieved over a three year period 2003–06. As a Trading Fund, VOSA will be required to meet its costs from its fees and charges.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts Council Budget
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the budget for the Arts Council for 2004–05 is; how much of this budget has been committed this year, and to what projects this money has been committed. [179943]

  Estelle Morris
  The budget for the Arts Council is set out in the following table.

  Arts Council budget allocations-2004–05

  Budget £000

  Commitment £000

  Grant in Aid (GIA):

  Regularly Funded Organisations

  280,081

  279,515

  Managed funds

  28,000

  2,919

  Grants to Individuals

  7,500

  1,431

  Creative Partnerships

  25,000

  25,000

  GIA administration

  23,677

  23,677

  Total

  364,258

  332,542

  Lottery:

  Grants for National Touring

  10,000

  2,679

  Grants to Organisations

  41,000

  7,982

  Stabilisation/Recovery of large scale organisations

  16,000

  16,000

  Capital Projects

  89,500

  89,500

  National Foundation for Youth Music

  10,000

  10,000

  Awards for All

  7,000

  1,790

  Lottery administration

  18,968

  18,968

  Total

  192,468

  146,919

  Arts Council England's total Grant in Aid allocation for 2004–05 is £365,455,000.

  Arts Council England's Lottery allocation for 2004–05 is £198,200,000. The Lottery budget is based on a cash flow forecasting exercise.

  It is not possible to list all of the projects that have received funding for the period 2004–05. For example the Grant in Aid budget supports over 1200 regularly funded organisations.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the most recent rate of teenage pregnancies per thousand population was in(a) Longbridge ward, Birmingham, (b) Birmingham and (c) England; and what action he is taking to monitor efforts to reduce this rate. [179425]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The latest under 18 conception data available at a ward level show there were 35 conceptions to females aged under 18 in Longbridge ward in 2000. At ward level, teenage pregnancy rates per thousand 1536W
  population can only be estimated due to the lack of accurate population denominators. An estimated aggregated rate for 1998–2000 for Longbridge ward shows an under 18 conception rate around 72 per 1,000 females aged 15–17.
  (a) The latest under 18 conception rate for Birmingham shows a provisional rate of 49.9 per 1,000 females aged 15–17 in 2002. This compares with a 1998 rate of 58.6 per 1,000 females aged 15–17.
  (b) The latest under 18 conception rate for England shows a provisional rate of 42.6 per 1,000 females aged 15–17 in 2002. This compares with a 1998 rate of 47.0 per 1,000 females aged 15–17.

  Monitoring of the implementation of the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy is undertaken at both a national and local level. At a national level, an Independent Advisory Group (IAG) provides advice to Government and monitors the overall success of the strategy. Its membership of 25 meets quarterly and members make visits to local areas to learn about implementation of the local teenage pregnancy strategies.

  At a local level implementation of the teenage pregnancy strategy in each top-tier local authority in England is reviewed every six months. Local areas submit annual reports and forward action plans at the end of March. These are assessed by regional assessment panels and written feedback given by the Regional Teenage Pregnancy Co-ordinator and the Teenage Pregnancy Unit. The Regional Teenage Pregnancy Coordinators also conduct six monthly review meetings to discuss progress.

  Departmental Secondments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [175368]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of secondments from the private and academic sector for each year from April 2002 is:

  April to March

  Private Sector

  Academic Sector

  2002–03

  6

  34

  2003–04

  7

  29

  Information for April 2001 to March 2002 is not available in the form requested.

  Free School Meals (Surrey)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills why the number of secondary school pupils in Surrey taking free school meals in January 2002 was higher than the number eligible for free school meals; and if he will make a statement. [179092]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  We have investigated the difference and unfortunately found that the number of pupils taking free school meals in Surrey secondary schools in January 2002 as previously published by the Department was not accurate.
  1537W
  The available statistics are based upon returns from the Annual Schools Census. These returns provide the number of pupils who had a free school meal at lunchtime on the Census day itself. One secondary school in Surrey recorded an incorrect total in the 2002 Annual Schools Census. This was the first year of a change from paper forms to electronic returns and this error was not noticed at the time. The published statistics reflect the data as returned by the school; hence the Surrey total was erroneously higher than the number of pupils who were eligible for a free meal. I have instructed officials to highlight this error on the Department's statistical website where the 2002 figures are published and to check other related publications.

  Numbers of pupils eligible to receive free school meals are also derived from the Annual Schools Census. The eligibility information is collected at pupil level and is subject to more detailed validation checks. The pupil level returns are aggregated to form school and LEA statistics that are widely used within the Department and beyond. There are no known concerns about the accuracy of the eligibility statistics

  Post-16 Education
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether there are systematic checks on eligibility for post-16 education. [177943]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Yes. Eligibility checks on post-16, excluding higher education, students are determined by the eligibility requirements, the level of risk of abuse and the need to minimise bureaucratic burdens on learners, learning providers and employers. This is an operational matter and the responsibility of the. Learning and Skills Council. Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Student Loan Company
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will publish the results of the pilot project for the Student Loan Company protocol computer system conducted in 2003, including feedback from local education authorities. [179589]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 21 Lune 2004]: We have no plans to publish operational reports. However, the hon. Gentleman may wish to know that the 2003 pilot of the Protocol system was successful All but a very small number of students who applied by the published deadlines in the pilot areas were paid at the start of term; all students in these areas who applied on-time had a payment by 25 September 2003. These results were an important part of the decision to roll-out the new system to all local education authorities (LEAs): a decision which was agreed with all stakeholders including representatives from LEAs.

  As with any pilot there were lessons learned and comments from LEAs about the way the system operated. The Student Loans Company have taken steps to address these issues in the design of the 2004/05 version of the system.

  Truancy
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what further steps he proposes to tackle truancy. [179904]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Promoting regular school attendance is a key component in the Government's strategy to raise educational standards. Tackling truancy, in particular, also contributes to the Government's objectives to reduce street crime and antisocial behaviour.

  The Department for Education and Skills will continue to promote a full range of measures to raise attendance and reduce truancy including:
  strengthening schools' capacity to manage attendance through audit and training materials and consultancy provided through the Key Stage 3 and Primary Strategies;
  providing intensive support for schools facing the greatest challenges through the Behaviour Improvement Programme;
  co-ordinating further national programmes of truancy sweeps, to generate local publicity and deter parentally condoned absences
  national rollout of the "Fast-track" case management system the aim of which is to ensure that schools and LEAs deal with attendance cases quickly and in the most effective way to get the child back into school;
  the introduction of new parenting contracts to enable schools and LEAs to engage earlier and more effectively with parents of children who are truanting. But where parents are unwilling to accept such voluntary and supportive measures we have introduced penalty notices for truancy as a speedy alternative to prosecution.

  These measures indicate the Department's focus on truancy as a high priority for improvement.

  Wirral Metropolitan College
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will inform Wirral Metropolitan College of its budget allocation for 2004–05. [179896]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 22 June 2004]: The LSC expects to confirm indicative allocations for all colleges immediately and final allocations including additional performance related funding by the 30 June 2004.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Car Service
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2004,Official Report, column 1569W, on Government cars, if he will list each occasion when Government whips have, since 1 January 2003, made use of a car from the Government car service pool, giving in each case the (a) date of use and (b) name of the whip. [160688]
  1539W
  Mr. Alexander
  The responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive Mr. Nick Matheson to write to the hon. Member. Copies of his letter will be placed in the Library.

  Government Online Services
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask, the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to the oral answer of 18 May 2004,Official Report, column 822, on e-Government, if he will break down by Department the £1 billion provided to improve take-up of Government online services. [179788]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 22 June 2004]: The £1 billion my hon. Friend referred to is the amount which was allocated during the 2002 Spending Review to invest in broadband connectivity for public services. The main recipients of these are: the Department for Education and Skills, for plans to provide all primary and secondary schools with 2Mb and 8Mb broadband connections respectively by 2006; the national health service, to provide all general practitioners practices with 256k connectively, and all hospitals, primary care trusts and other health authorities with a minimum of 2Mb; the Criminal Justice System to provide information communication technology infrastructure across the six major criminal justice organisations-police, crown prosecution service, magistrates courts, crown court, probation and prisons.

  Responsibility for effective co-ordination of this expenditure rests with the Department for Trade and Industry.

  Government Websites
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what measures he proposes to take to rectify problems with(a) missing files, (b) management of website structures, (c) the use of illegal characters in web addresses, (d) problems with compliance with the Government's search index system and (e) hosting websites on servers that are not able to manage demand in respect of Government websites. [179768]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office has published the "Guidelines for UK Government Websites", which provides extensive advice to Government web managers. In practice the overall management, both technical and editorial, of Government websites is the responsibility of individual Departments and Agencies.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the compliance of Government websites with Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines. [179769]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the response given to him on 14 June 2004,Official Report, column 721W, on Government Websites.

HEALTH

  Health Services (Rochdale)
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the parliamentary 1540W
  constituency of Rochdale are receiving treatment for drug dependency; and what percentage are (a) women, (b) under 20 and (c) from an ethnic minority. [178501]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  In 2000–01, there were 712 people receiving drug treatment in the area covered by the drug action team in Rochdale. Data broken down by drug action team for 2001–02 and 2002–03 has not been finalised.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on waiting times for heart surgery on the NHS in Rochdale. [178435]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The latest figures available show that no one waited more than nine months for a heart operation in the Rochdale Primary Care Trust (PCT) area. The total number of people waiting for a heart operation in the Rochdale PCT area was 264.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents in Rochdale awaiting heart surgery have had the option of choosing an alternative hospital for quicker treatment in the last 12 months. [178436]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Since July 2002, patients who have been waiting for six months for heart operations have been offered the choice of faster treatment at another hospital, in either the national health service or the independent sector.

  A and E Waiting Times
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time at accident and emergency departments at the(a) Royal Free, (b) North Middlesex (c) Whittington, (d) Homerton and (e) University College hospitals was at (i) the latest available date and (ii) for each of the past three years. [179641]

  Mr. Hutton
  We do not collect figures on average waiting times in accident and emergency departments. However, we do publish data on the percentage of patients spending four hours or less in accident and emergency departments from arrival to discharge, admission or transfer. These figures can be found on the department's website at http:// www.performance.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/datarequests/total_time _ae.htm

  Acute Mental Illness Beds (Sefton)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute mental illness beds were available for(a) the elderly, (b) children and (c) other age groups in Sefton in each of the last three years; and how many were secure units. [177858]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information most closely associated with place of residency is not collected on a constituency level but at national health service trust level. The information is shown in the following table.
  1541W

  Elderly

  Children

  NHS organisation

  2001–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2001–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Southport and Ormskirk NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sefton PCT

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Five Boroughs Partnership NHS Trust

  —

  —

  204

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Trust

  —

  —

  142

  —

  —

  10

  Mersey Care NHS Trust

  —

  151

  149

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Liverpool Childrens NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  8

  9

  9

  Other ages

  Secure (other)

  NHS organisation

  2001–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Southport and Ormskirk NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sefton PCT

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Five Boroughs Partnership NHS Trust

  —

  —

  302

  —

  —

  20

  Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Trust

  —

  —

  272

  —

  —

  15

  Mersey Care NHS Trust

  —

  314

  316

  —

  17

  44

  Royal Liverpool Childrens NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Alcohol
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he plans to curb teenage alcohol consumption. [179826]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 23 June 2004]: Existing licensing legislation expressly prohibits the sale of alcohol to the under 18s and its consumption by them on licensed premises in certain circumstances. The implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 will further tighten these laws by extending their scope, increasing penalties, removing existing anomalies and making licences more instantly at risk of forfiet where offences take place.

  My right hon. Friend, The Home Secretary announced on 11 June 2004 that the Home Office police standards unit, working in partnership with the Association of Chief Police Officers, will be inviting forces and other partners from across the country to take part in a co-ordinated programme of enforcement and initiatives to tackle alcohol fuelled violence. The campaign includes targeting the irresponsible few who encourageunderage and binge drinking and targeting drunken behaviour. This takes forward one of the recommendations in the Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy for England.

  The Department produces a number of leaflets for young people and their parents setting out the risks of alcohol misuse. The Department also plans to develop a range of new health promotion messages for binge drinkers, many of whom will be teenagers. The Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy for England set out the framework of a voluntary social responsibility scheme for alcohol producers and retailers. The Department and the Home Office will work with the drinks industry to develop this scheme.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust have been treated for alcohol-related illness in each of the last five years. [180058]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  1542W

  Finished admissions into national health service hospitals for patients resident in Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust 1998–99 to 2002–03 with a primary diagnosis of "alcohol-related illness"

  Finished admissions

  1998–99

  230

  1999–2000

  230

  2000–01

  204

  2001–02

  243

  2002–03

  246

  Notes:

  Finished Admission Episodes

  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.

  Ungrossed Data

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

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Antidepressants
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many working days were spent between June 2003 and May 2004 on the review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related antidepressants being conducted by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and Committee on Safety of Medicines. [179718]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines' (CSM) expert working group on the safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors was established in May 2003 and met 11 times between June 2003 and May 2004. The CSM has considered reports from the expert working group on seven occasions. A range of staff from a number of different disciplines within the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has been involved in the review at various stages. It is not possible to provide a meaningful estimate of the number of working days spent on the review because the proportion of staff time dedicated to the review has varied according to the type of input required over the time period in question.

  Arm's Length Bodies
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate how many employees of his Department are to be transferred to a departmental arm's length body as part of the Change programme. [175312]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We estimate that 415 posts will be transferred to departmental arms length bodies as part of the Department's change programme. Those bodies are themselves being reviewed, as my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, said in his written statement on 20 May.

  Attitude Surveys
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what surveys of public perceptions of(a) his Department, (b) the NHS and (c) other areas of responsibility of the Department have taken place over the last 12 months; what the (i) title and (ii) nature of these surveys was; what the findings of each survey were; where these findings have been published; what the cost of all surveys was; and if he will make a statement and place copies of the surveys in the Library. [174338]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  For the Department, we have not commissioned any surveys into public perceptions over the past 12 months.

  The Department commissioned an opinion research agency, MORI, to carry out a survey into public perceptions of the national health service in winter 2003. The full report, called "Public perceptions of the NHS tracking survey", has been published on the MORI website and can be accessed through the Department's website at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/ Published Survey/ListOfSurveySince 1990/fs/en

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Based on a relatively small national sample of 1,000 interviews, the results provide a useful check on public sentiment and patient experience to complement the much larger patient surveys undertaken by the former Commission for Health Improvement and its successor, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. Results have been shared with NHS senior managers and stakeholders to inform policy objectives and business planning. These surveys show high levels of patient satisfaction with the NHS.

  Since 2000, we have carried out six such surveys into public perceptions of the national health service at a total cost of £236,950 (plus VAT). This figure also includes a small amount of qualitative work carried out with the 2000 survey.

  For other areas of responsibility, information on surveys into public perceptions of the Department's arm's length bodies could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Breakfast
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has for promoting the benefits of eating breakfast to children.[179827]
  1544W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 23 June 2004]: The Department is undertaking a healthier breakfast club pilot project as part of the joint Department of Health/Department for Education and Skills "Food in Schools" (FiS) programme. The results of this, and the other seven Department of Health-led FiS pilot projects, will be disseminated to schools early next year.

  Deaf-Blind People
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to ensure health staff have the relevant training to provide an effective service to deaf-blind people. [180203]

  Mr. Hutton
  NHSU, the organisation set up by the Department to establish a university for the national health service, is leading the development and delivery of disability equality and awareness training tools and resources as part of a wider disability learning and development strategy. An initial prototype learning programme, aimed at providing staff with a broad overview of disability awareness, will be ready for consultation in the autumn.

  Delayed Discharge Charging
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chargeable days NHS trusts in England have reported since liability for delayed discharge charging came into effect; and what the total charging liability since this date is. [179590]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 21 June 2004]: Between 5 January 2004, when charging for delayed discharges was introduced and 28 March 2004, national health service trusts reported 58,724 days of delay to discharge because of patients awaiting social services.

  Information on agreed legal liabilities for charging will be collected centrally at the end of the first six months of the scheme. The majority of councils have arranged local investment agreements with the NHS and will only pay charges for delays falling outside this agreement.

  Departmental Vacancies
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish his Department's vacancies survey for March. [180345]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service staff vacancy survey 2004 is due for publication in July 2004.

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make domestic violence training mandatory for all health professionals. [178809]

  Mr. Hutton
  Responsibility for professional education rests with the respective colleges and relevant professional bodies The Department will support health professionals in establishing domestic violence policy, practice and training programmes in a number of ways. "Domestic Violence: A Resource Manual for Health Care Professionals", published in 2000, is being revised to include new material on training. In addition, the REFUGE therapists manual and training materials
  1545W
  coming out of the University of the West of England pilot funded by the Department will be widely disseminated. Significant work has also been done by the national domestic violence health practitioners forum that will feed into the violence and abuse programme expert group on domestic violence for dissemination from April 2005. A national conference is planned for September 2004 which will provide the focus for all this work to come together as a resource for health professionals to enable them to access appropriate training.

  Drug Applications
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the average(a) amount and (b) proportion of working days spent on scrutiny of new drug applications that is accounted for by examination of raw data from Phase 3 clinical trials. [179575]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Companies are required to submit, for review and assessment, summaries of all the clinical data and these are much more useful than the examination of the actual raw data for helping to determine the quality, safety and efficacy of products. The average amount of time spent by all assessors assessing a new drug is approximately 50 working days, only a small proportion of which is spent on review of raw data.

  Drug Licensing
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the fees charged for the licensing of a new drug is typically earmarked for post-marketing surveillance; and what his estimate is of the average amount payable for each new drug made available for that purpose. [179719]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Initial application fees for new drugs cover the work associated with the assessment and evaluation of an application prior to granting a marketing authorisation. Fees for post-marketing surveillance of authorised drugs are charged through an annual service fee for each live marketing authorisation. This service fee covers a number of activities, including enforcement, renewals and post-marketing surveillance activities and it accounts for around 36 per cent., of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's annual budget.

  The service fee is tiered according to the type of application, to reflect the increased post-marketing activity in newer drugs, compared to well established generic drugs. A newly authorised medicine attracts an annual service fee of £14,768, compared to £1,521 for an established prescription only medicine, or £275 for a general sale list product. Because the service fee covers a number of activities, it is not possible to estimate the amount available purely for post-marketing surveillance for each new product.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what agreements exist between the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and pharmaceutical companies that define(a) the basis on
  1546W
  which drug licence fees are set and charged and (b) for what purpose fees may legitimately be used; and if he will publish them. [179720]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  No agreements exist between the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the pharmaceutical companies in relation to fees.

  The Medicines Acts 1968 and 1971 require the MHRA to consult the pharmaceutical industry and other interested parties on any proposals to amend the Fees Regulations. Parliamentary approval is then required.

  The MHRA is a Government trading fund and as such, is required to cover its full costs, in relation to the regulation of medicines, from user-fees. Fees paid to the MHRA may be used for purposes set out in the Medicines (Fixing of Fees Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use) Order 1989 (SI 1989 No 684 amended by SI 1995 No 871), which specifies costs and activities which may be taken into account when setting fees for the MHRA. These include functions of the medicines advisory bodies, all functions relating to European and United Kingdom medicines regulations, enforcement of regulations and premises and equipment overheads.

  MHRA fees are published and are available in the Library and on the MHRA's website.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency's fee income is allocated to post-marketing surveillance. [179721]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The proportion of income fees allocated to post-marketing surveillance by the medicines sector of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for 2003–04 was approximately 30 per cent.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the licensing authority has conducted an audit of the reliability of summaries of clinical data provided by pharmaceutical companies applying for new drug licence applications.[179722]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency does scrutinise companies' raw data when considered necessary to ensure the reliability of summaries of clinical data. This may be done in various ways including looking at original patients' trial records, reviewing extensive listings of data and sometimes re-analysing the data.

  Drug Rehabilitation (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reduce waiting times for drug rehabilitation in Crosby; what the budget is for the drug action team in Crosby in 2004–05; and how many people have been seen by the drug action team in each of the last three years. [177855]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not available centrally. The Crosby area is covered by the Sefton drug action team, which is equivalent to the Sefton Metropolitan local authority area.
  1547W
  The Government have invested substantial extra funding for drug treatment with the total pooled drug treatment budget increasing by over 100 per cent. since it was introduced in 2001–02. In 2004–05, the total pooled drug treatment budget allocation for the Sefton drug action team was £1,490,000, including young people's pooled drug treatment budget allocation, which is issued separately from the adult allocation.

  The latest national waiting time figures show that additional funding has helped to reduce average waiting times for drug treatment from five to 11 weeks in 2001 to two to four weeks by April 2004.

  A census of drug users in treatment was carried out in 2000 to estimate the number of drug users in England in contact with drug treatment agencies in 2000–01. The number of drug users reported as being in treatment in the Sefton drug action team area was 936. Data has been published in a statistical bulletin "Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases on drug misusers in treatment in England, 2000–01". This is available on the Department's website at http://www.publications. doh.gov.uk/public/sb0133.htm.

  Drug Treatment (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the spending in Chorley on drug treatment was in each of the last five years, broken down by(a) gender and (b) whether the patients were under or over 18; [179526]

  (2) what the budget for drug treatment for Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust is in 2004–05. [179527]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested. Allocations of funding for particular treatments are matters for local primary care trusts (PCTs).

  The budget for the drug action team for Lancashire, which covers the Chorley and South Ribble PCT, is £4.26 million in 2004–05.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost to an NHS trust is of developing an application for foundation trust status. [179592]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 June 2004]: The Department does not hold information as to the cost involved in developing an application for national health service foundation trust (NHSFT) status as costs will vary from trust to trust. The NHSFT model allows trusts to tailor their proposals to meet the individual circumstances of their hospital and community, within certain parameters set out in legislation. There will be, for example, significant local variation on costs surrounding the creation and maintenance of a membership organisation. The cost of each election will also vary depending on the size of the electorate and the level of documentation provided. It would appear that typical costs for the elections for the first NHSFTs have come out at a little over £1 per member. The costs of the governance arrangements will not necessarily be entirely additional as they will replicate some current activity that NHS trusts are already doing around informing the public, patients and staff about issues affecting the trust.
  1548W
  The Department has provided £250,000 direct financial support to each wave 1 applicant and, to date, £175,000 to wave 1A applicants to assist them in their preparations for their application and establishment as a NHSFT. It is for each trust to determine how this resource is best spent.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost has been of setting up a foundation trust. [179283]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not hold information as to the cost involved in developing an application for national health service foundation trust (NHSFT) status as costs will vary from trust to trust. The NHSFT model allows trusts to tailor their proposals to meet the individual circumstances of their hospital and community, within certain parameters set out in legislation. There will be, for example, significant local variation on costs surrounding the creation and maintenance of a membership organisation. The cost of each election will also vary depending on the size of the electorate and the level of documentation provided. It would appear that typical costs for the elections for the first NHSFTs have come out at a little over £1 per member. The costs of the governance arrangements will not necessarily be entirely additional as they will replicate some current activity that NHS trusts are already doing around informing the public, patients and staff about issues affecting the trust.

  The Department has provided £250,000 direct financial support to each wave 1 applicant and, to date, £175,000 to wave 1A applicants to assist them in their preparations for their application and establishment as a NHSFT. It is for each trust to determine how this resource is best spent.

  Free Eye Tests
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many senior citizens from the Tamworth constituency have taken up free eye tests. [179957]

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

  The total population for those aged 60 and over in Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority is about 320,450. All people aged 60 and over are eligible for national health service sight tests.

  The total number of NHS sight tests paid for by Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority in the year 2002–03 for the aged 60 and over category was 138,040. Sight tests cannot be equated to the number of patients.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pensioners in Warrington North have benefited from free eye tests since their introduction. [180084]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data for the number of sight tests by constituency or by the number of senior citizens is not collected centrally.

  In 2002-03, the total number of national health service sight tests pa id for patients aged 60 and over in Cheshire and Merse 'side strategic health authority was

  1549W
  201,180. The total number eligible for a free sight test for those aged 60 and over was 507,080. Sight tests cannot be equated to the numbers of patients.

  Genito-urinary Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) monitoring and (b) research has been conducted by and for his Department on waiting times for genito-urinary medicine services. [179156]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department is currently examining with the Health Protection Agency ways in which data on waiting times at genito-urinary medicine (GUM) clinics can be obtained. Early this year, the Department undertook pilot surveys in a number of GUM clinics where patients were asked to complete a short anonymous questionnaire seeking information on waiting times. These pilots have proved successful and the first full national survey of clinics took place in May this year and are currently being analysed.

  Glue Sniffing
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 14 June 2004,Official Report, column 682W, on glue sniffing, what information is held centrally on the problem of glue sniffing among teenagers; and if he will make a statement. [180272]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department commissions an annual national survey of secondary schoolchildren aged 11 to 15 about drug use, including glue, gas, aerosols or solvents, smoking and drinking among young people in England. The survey for 2003 was carried out by the national centre for social research (NatCen) and the national foundation for educational research (NFER), and was published in March 2004 by the Department. This document is available in the Library.

  In addition, the Department funds the Department of Public Health Sciences at St. George's hospital medical school to collect statistics on deaths associated with the abuse of gas fuels, aerosols, glues and other solvent based products. The 16th annual report "Trends in Death Associated with abuse of volatile substances 1971–2001" highlighting mortality statistics for 2001, was published on 21 July 2003, and can be found on St. George's website at http://www.vsareport.org.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost of a primary hip replacement, undertaken on the NHS as an elective in-patient planned admission by an NHS trust, has been in each year since 1998. [179880]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 22 June 2004]: The national average cost of a primary hip replacement undertaken as an elective in-patient planned admission, in a national health service trust in each year since 1998 is shown in the table.

  Reference cost collection

  National average unit cost (£)

  1998 [financial year 1997–98]1

  3,678

  1999 [financial year 1998–99]

  3,755

  2000 [financial year 1999–2000]

  3,899

  1550W

  Reference cost collection

  National average unit cost (£)

  2001 [financial year 2000–01]

  4,179

  2002 [financial year 2001–02]

  4,356

  2003 [financial year 2002–03]

  4,660

  Figure may include elements of critical care service expenditure(subsequently removed from composite admitted patient care Healthcare Resource Group and separately identified).

  Sources:

  The New NHS 1998 Reference Costs, Appendix 1A.

  The New NHS 1999 Reference Costs, Appendix 1A.

  Reference Costs 2000, Appendix 1A.

  Reference Costs 2001, Appendix 1A.

  Reference Costs 2002.

  Payment by Results Core Tools 2004, Appendix SRC1 A.

  Copies of all above publications are available in the Library.

  Hospital Reconfigurations
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reviews of contested hospital reconfigurations the NHS Independent Reconfiguration Panel has undertaken since its formation; and how many are awaiting referral by the Secretary of State to the panel. [178840]

  Mr. Hutton
  The independent reconfiguration panel (IRP) has, since its establishment, offered advice to the Secretary of State on one contested proposal for reconfiguration of services in East Kent.

  The Government's aim is to ensure that options for national health service change are developed with the help and support of local people and that, wherever possible, disagreements are resolved locally without recourse to Ministers. To assist this, the IRP also offers generic advice and assistance on reconfiguration issues to NHS organisations, local authorities and other interested bodies up to the commencement of formal consultation. So far this year, the IRP has advised on proposals under development in North London, Teeside, Avon, Hampshire and Manchester. There are no reviews of contested reconfigurations currently awaiting referral by the Secretary of State to the IRP.

  Insulin
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the clinical effectiveness of (i) animal-based insulins and (ii) other insulins; and if he will make a statement. [R] [179547]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  All authorised insulins, whether human insulin or animal insulin, have been demonstrated to be efficacious in people with diabetes mellitus. As part of the licensing approval process for any medicinal product, including insulins, the applicant has to provide evidence that the product meets appropriate standards of quality, safety and efficacy. This will include clinical trail data in patients with diabetes. The decision to use one or other of the insulins rests with the physician in consultation with the patient.

  The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority does not commission separate studies.

  Iron Deficiency Anaemia
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Healthy Start Scheme will address the condition of iron deficiency anaemia in infants; and if he will make a statement. [179629]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In line with the recommendations of the committee on medical aspects of food and nutrition policy (COMA), Healthy Start will provide vouchers to qualifying pregnant women and families that can be exchanged for fresh fruit and vegetables as well as milk and infant formula. Advice and support will be offered to beneficiaries to help them establish healthy diets that contain appropriate vitamins and minerals.

  Additional vouchers will be given to qualifying families with children aged 0–12 months from estimated date of delivery if later than their first birthday. This reflects COMA's concern that low birth weight babies have an increased risk of developing iron deficiency. Healthy Start will also provide vouchers to all women under 18 who become pregnant, regardless of their family income, because of their increased nutritional vulnerability.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of a possible link between iron deficiency anaemia and socio-economic deprivation; [179630]

  (2) what percentage of children were affected by iron deficiency anaemia in the last period for which figures are available. [179631]

  Miss Melanie Johnson: The Department undertakes regular surveys to monitor the diet and health of children. The national diet and nutrition survey (NDNS) indicated that the reported prevalence of anaemia varies markedly between populations studied. The NDNS showed that more than 10 per cent, of children aged 1.5 to 2.5 years were anaemic. This fell to 6 per cent. for children aged 2.5 to 3.5 years. Iron intakes are also considerably lower in young women with 50 per

  Expenditure on the commissioning of mental illness services by primary care trusts (PCT) in Devon

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Cash expenditure (£000)

  As a percentage of total budget

  Cash expenditure (£000)

  As a percentage of total budget

  Cash expenditure (£000)

  As a percentage of total budget

  East Devon PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  61

  0.09

  8,293

  7.26

  Exeter PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  1,307

  1.51

  9,438

  7.11

  Mid Devon PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  492

  0.89

  12,932

  13.95

  North Devon PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  32

  0.03

  10,384

  7.43

  Plymouth PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  3,414

  1.68

  25,949

  10.27

  South Hams and West Devon PCT

  3,283

  8.99

  6,809

  9.24

  4,904

  5.66

  Teignbridge PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  6,837

  9.07

  11,311

  11.60

  Torbay PCT

  4,360

  9.51

  8,984

  8.37

  7,960

  5.47

  NHS (Language Services)
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what methods and at what intervals his Department will monitor the delivery of the NHS Direct language services contract; and if he will publish future performance assessments.[179668]
  1552W
  cent. of 15 to 18-year-olds with intakes well below the recommended amounts, which can put them at risk of iron deficiency anaemia.

  There are no significant regional differences or differences by household benefit status for men or women in iron deficiency anaemia, although it is more common among certain ethnic groups such as those from an Asian and Afro-Caribbean background. However, lower intakes of both iron and vitamin C, which helps in the adsorption of iron, were associated with manual groups

  Medicines (Prescription in Hospitals)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it a priority to publish data provided by IMS on the prescription of medicines in hospitals for the treatment of(a) cancer, (b) rheumatological conditions and (c) hepatitis C; [179448]

  (2) when he expects is to publish the data provided by IMS on the availability and prescription in hospitals of medicines which have received positive National Institute for Clinical Excellence approval. [179449]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has recently reached agreement with IMS on the provision of data on the use of medicines in English hospitals. The intention is that the Department will publish information annually, six months after the end of the period. The first publication will be in the summer of 2005. Together with the annual publication of information about prescriptions dispensed in the community, this will give a much fuller picture of the use of medicines in the national health service.

  Mental Health Services (Devon)
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the amount spent by each primary care trust (PCT) in Devon on mental health services(a) by percentage of total budget and (b) in cash terms for each year that the PCTs have been operational.[179823]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 22 June 2004]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The NHS Direct language service contract will be monitored through monthly activity reports and quarterly review meetings. The performance assessments will be available on request.

  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, following the recent award of the contract to supply interpreting and translation services
  1553W
  by NHS Direct (OJEC ref: 2003/S153–139660), all NHS patients will continue to have their interpretation needs met by UK-based interpreters. [179670]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  National health service interpreters provided within the NHS Direct contract will, for the most part, be United Kingdom based. Where non-UK based interpreters and translators are used they must under the terms of the contract, have a qualification which is equivalent to that of UK-based interpreters and a reasonable understanding of the NHS.

  NHS Productivity
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the change in NHS productivity in each year since 1997; what measures he uses to calculate NHS productivity; and if he will make a statement; [178215]

  (2) what the evidential basis is for the assessment that there has been a 1.5 per cent. annual improvement in NHS productivity. [178216]

  Mr. Hutton
  The chief executive's report, published in May 2004, highlighted a number of areas where the national health service is becoming more productive including:Productivity improvements in the ambulance service and cardiology.
  Quantifiable improvements in results—both outcomes and outputs—with improvements in premature mortality from coronary heart disease, cancer and suicide and faster access and treatment throughout the NHS.
  Health promotion measures, such as 'flu injections, which provide value for money.
  Control of overheads and wastage with, for example, lower management costs than other of organisations, improved procurement and project management and control of bureaucracy.

  The Department has been undertaking work on productivity measurement including the development on an interim measure of NHS cost efficiency that takes account of expenditure on improving the quality of NHS services. Although this measure is still under development and not yet finalised, initial results suggest that cost efficiency in 2002–03 improved by over 1 per cent.

  GPs (excluding retainers, registrars and locums)1 and patients of unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)2 for London by strategic health authority and primary care trust

  Numbers (headcount)

  1997

  GP (excluding retainers, registrars and locums)1

  Patients of UPEs2

  Patients of UPEs per GP (excluding retainers, registrars and locums)

  London

  4,324

  7,936,576

  1,835

  Of which

  North central London

  Q05

  744

  1,401,419

  1,884

  North east London

  Q06

  849

  1,572,827

  1,853

  North west London

  Q04

  1,164

  2,031,706

  1,745

  South east London

  Q07

  833

  1,578,888

  1,895

  South west London

  Q08

  734

  1,351,736

  1,842

  1554W
  Further work by the Department to improve productivity measurement is now being undertaken in conjunction with the Office for National Statistics and with the review of measurement of Government output and productivity commissioned by Len Cook. Two aims of this review, led by Sir Tony Atkinson, are to improve the way health outputs are measured in the national accounts and to support improved measures of health productivity.

  NHS Security
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many security incidents he estimates there were in the NHS in England in each year since 1996. [179154]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on security incidents is available for the period 1999 to 2002. This is shown in the table.

  Number of incidents

  1999–2000

  106,935

  2000–01

  112,095

  2001–02

  166,667

  Note:

  No statistics are available for the period 1996 to 1999 and 2002 to the present.

  The national health service security management service is currently developing methods to ensure that security incidents are reported and recorded in a simple consistent manner across the NHS.

  NHS Statistics (London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients there were per general practitioner within greater London, broken down by borough(a) on the most recent recorded date and (b) in 1997. [179397]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the number of patients registered with a general practitioner unrestricted principal or equivalent, divided by the number of all GPs, excluding GP retainers and GP registrars. Figures for 1997 are only available by strategic health authority (SHA) area. Information by SHA area is provided for 1997 and 2002. Officials are investigating some localised anomalies in patient figures for 2003 and revised figures for 2003 will be available shortly.
  1555W

  2002

  GPs (excluding retainers, registrars and locums1)

  Patients of UPEs2

  Patients of UPEs per GP (excluding retainers, registrars and locums)

  London

  4,327

  8,122,456

  1,877

  Of which

  North central London

  Q05

  743

  1,394,454

  1,877

  North east London

  Q06

  874

  1,647,64

  21,885

  North west London

  Q04

  1,088

  2,040,719

  1,876

  South east London

  Q07

  876

  1,629,989

  1,861

  South west London

  Q08

  746

  1,409,652

  1,890

  1All practitioners (excluding retainers, registrars and locums) include UPEs, restricted principals, assistants, salaried doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS other and flexible career scheme GPs and GP returners

  2 UPEs include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.

  Data as at 1 October 1997 and 30 September 2003

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified radiographers have been employed in Greater London, broken down by national health service trust, in each of the last five years. [179398]

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified radiography staff in the London regional office area by strategic health authority area and by organisation as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  London

  1,964

  1,946

  1,924

  1,888

  1,879

  North West London SHA

  Q04

  396

  417

  406

  399

  389

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust

  RQM

  46

  44

  47

  41

  40

  Ealing Hospital NHS Trust

  RC3

  28

  26

  23

  20

  20

  Hillingdon HA

  QA2

  2

  2

  2

  1—

  1—

  Hillingdon PCT

  5AT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2

  1

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  RV8

  81

  77

  74

  68

  70

  Parkside Health NHS Trust

  RDA

  1

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust

  RT3

  19

  52

  45

  55

  51

  St. Mary's NHS Trust

  RJ5

  43

  39

  41

  46

  41

  The Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  RQN

  117

  107

  100

  95

  96

  The Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  RAS

  27

  40

  43

  41

  42

  West London Mental Health NHS Trust

  RKL

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1

  1

  West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust

  RFW

  32

  30

  31

  30

  27

  North Central London SHA

  Q05

  456

  468

  454

  417

  414

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  RVL

  77

  77

  75

  78

  77

  Camden PCT

  5K7

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1

  Great Ormond Street Hospital For Children NHS Trust

  RP4

  32

  43

  41

  39

  30

  Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust

  RP6

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust

  RAP

  62

  61

  56

  51

  56

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  RAN

  25

  25

  27

  24

  22

  The Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  RAL

  76

  85

  76

  75

  74

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  RRV

  152

  143

  142

  118

  122

  Whittington Hospital NHS Trust

  RKE

  31

  33

  36

  31

  31

  North East London SHA

  Q06

  350

  338

  322

  322

  333

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust

  RF4

  1—

  1—

  94

  95

  105

  BHB Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  RG6

  2

  2

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Forest Healthcare NHS Trust

  RDF

  38

  39

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Havering Hospitals NHS Trust

  RG7

  74

  80

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Havering PCT

  5A4

  1—

  1—

  1

  1

  1

  Homerton University Hospital NHS Trust

  RQX

  25

  26

  24

  25

  30

  Newham Community Health Services NHS Trust

  RRH

  1—

  1

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Newham Healthcare NHS Trust

  RNH

  26

  25

  25

  22

  20

  Newham PCT

  5C5

  1—

  1—

  1

  1—

  1—

  Redbridge Health Care NHS Trust

  RG4

  27

  23

  1—

  1—

  1—

  The Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  RNJ

  158

  142

  134

  138

  141

  Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust

  RGC

  1—

  1—

  43

  41

  36

  South East London SHA

  Q07

  382

  370

  390

  384

  386

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  RG3

  36

  35

  37

  33

  41

  Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust

  RJ1

  140

  129

  128

  138

  142

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  RJZ

  87

  96

  97

  87

  81

  1556W
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table for a five year period ending 2003, which is the latest available information held.
  1557W

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified radiography staff in the London regional office area by strategic health authority area and by organisation as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust

  RG2

  37

  31

  48

  42

  40

  Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust

  RGZ

  42

  42

  42

  45

  43

  South London and Maudsley NHS Trus

  RV5

  11

  10

  9

  9

  10

  The Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  RJ2

  29

  27

  29

  30

  29

  South West London SHA

  Q08

  380

  353

  352

  366

  357

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

  RVR

  83

  76

  67

  71

  63

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  RAX

  63

  58

  55

  58

  56

  Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust

  RJ6

  34

  34

  37

  37

  32

  Richmond and Twickenham PCT

  5M6

  1—

  1—

  1—

  3

  3

  Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust

  RPY

  98

  88

  95

  99

  104

  South West London Community NHS Trust

  RVM

  2

  2

  2

  1—

  1—

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  RJ7

  97

  92

  94

  98

  99

  Teddington Memorial Hospital

  RRR

  3

  3

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Teddington, Twickenham and Hamptons PCT

  5A6

  1—

  1—

  2

  1—

  1—

  1Not applicable.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many assaults there were on members of NHS staff during the last 12 months at hospitals in Greater London, broken down by National Health Service Trust. [179399]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not available in the format requested.

  NICE Facilitators
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many National Institute for Clinical Excellence facilitators have been appointed within primary care trusts. [179452]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Osteoporosis
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England suffer from osteoporosis. [179681]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, hospital episode statistics give accounts of admissions to national health service hospitals in England by English residents. In 2002–03, there were 8,888 finished admissions episodes where the primary diagnosis was osteoporosis.

  Note:

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

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

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

  PHLS Media Services
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to safeguard the supply of agar plates in the event of a national emergency. [179392]
  1558W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  National Health Service Trusts and the Health Protection Agency (HPA) have well-established contingency plans for maintaining supplies of agar plates in the event of a national emergency. These include retention within the HPA of a capacity to respond to surges in demand for specialist media resulting from any outbreak or threat.

  Professor Breckenridge
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he made of the interests held by Professor Breckenridge when appointing him to the Subcommittee on Pharmacovigilance. [179675]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Professor Sir Alistair Breckenridge was appointed as chairman of the Pharmacovigilance Sub-committee of the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) from 1 January 1996 and served in that post until 31 December 1998. Until the end of 1997 he had declared personal interests in SmithKline and Beecham as a member of its Scientific Advisory Committee. It is acceptable for members of medicines advisory committees, and chairmen and members of sub-committees to hold interests in the pharmaceutical industry so long as they are declared publicly.

  Members of all of the Medicines Act Advisory committees are required to follow a code of practice on declarations of interests in the pharmaceutical industry. Both the code and the individual details of members' interests are published annually in the advisory bodies' reports. Copies are available in the Library and are also available on the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's web site (www.mhra.gov.uk). The code of practice sets out the types of interests that should be declared and also provides a framework for ensuring that conflicts of interests are avoided in the course of the advisory bodies' work. A legal adviser attends every meeting of the advisory bodies and ensures that the code is complied with.
  1559W
  Professor Sir Alistair Breckenridge was appointed as chairman of the CSM from 1 January 1999 until 31 March 2003. He has had no interests in the pharmaceutical industry since the end of 1997.

  Public Health
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of establishing 25 consultants and specialists in public health per million population. [179678]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information we hold centrally does not allow us to give an accurate estimate of the cost of establishing 25 consultants and specialists in public health per million population. Public health specialist is a generic term and practitioners can come from a range of backgrounds and disciplines with varying rates of pay.

  Registered Doctors
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the number of clinicians newly registered to practise in the UK who were unable to find a recognised training post more than three months after they had registered to practise in each of the last three years. [178265]

  Mr. Hutton
  The data is not collected by the Department.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average number of days taken in sickness absence by(a) doctors and (b) nurses was in each year since 1996; [178474]

  (2) how many days were taken in sickness absence by (a) doctors and (b) nurses in each year since 1996. [178475]

  Mr. Hutton
  Figures for sickness absence in the national health service in England were not collected by the Department between 1997 and 1999. We do not collect or produce information for number of days or the average number of days lost per NHS employee but publish the figures as a percentage lost of the time they should have been available for work. General practitioners and their staff are not included in these figures. The Department does not collect separate information for doctors or nurses.

  The national NHS sickness absence level for 2003 is 4.7 per cent. This is slightly higher than the figure for 2002 of 4.6 per cent., but is lower than the figure for 2001 of 4.8 per cent. The overall NHS sickness absence rates have changed little over the last five years. The continued importance given to the management of sickness absence by NHS employers should show further improvements in the absence levels. The table shows the figures published for sickness absence in the NHS in England and its regions and covers the period from 2002 to 2003.

  Percentages

  2002

  2003

  England

  4.6

  4.7

  Regions

  North East

  5.0

  5.1

  North West

  5.0

  5.2

  Yorkshire and Humber

  4.4

  4.5

  1560W

  Percentages

  2002

  2003

  East Midlands

  4.8

  5.1

  West Midlands

  4.9

  5.1

  East of England

  4.5

  4.6

  London

  4.4

  4.3

  South East

  4.1

  4.2

  South West

  4.8

  4.7

  Special health authorities and other statutory bodies

  5.4

  4.2

  Substance Misuse
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners are involved in substance misuse shared care in each drug action team area. [180154]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Tetra Mast (Dursley)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to investigate changes in reported illness rates in Dursley, Gloucestershire in the vicinity of the recently installed Tetra mast. [179569]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This is a matter for Cotswold and Vale Primary Care Trust (PCT). I understand that the issue has not been raised with the PCT by local general practitioners and the PCT has not considered the mast as a key issue for public health locally.

  Zyban
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he has given to general practitioners regarding possible side effects of use of the drug Zyban; [179181]

  (2) if he will make a statement on yellow card reports received in connection with use of the drug Zyban. [179182]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Guidance on prescribing and use of Zyban, including possible side effects, is provided in the authorised summary of product characteristics for health professionals and patient information leaflet. Key prescribing information is also included in the British National Formulary which is sent by the Department to doctors and pharmacists within the national health service.

  Since marketing, the safety of Zyban has been closely monitored by the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). The CSM has looked at the accumulating evidence from Yellow Card reports of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs). received in association with its use. In accordance with their advice, a number of steps have been taken to optimise the safe use of Zyban and to minimise the risk of side effects, particularly seizures. This includes advice to general practitioners and smoking cessation clinics, which was issued in March 2001, reminding them of the safety profile of Zyban and of information posted, on the CSM website.

  In May 2001, the CSM issued new guidance strengthened warnings particularly about potential interactions with other medicines and advised a slower increase in the dose of Zyban in order to minimise the

  1561W
  risk of side effects, the lower 150mg dose should be prescribed for the first six days, increasing to 150mg twice daily on day seven rather than day four. This new guidance was issued in order to allow more time for the drug levels to stabilise, to help minimise the risk of adverse reactions, particularly seizures. Since this guidance was issued, the reporting rate of suspected ADRs has fallen significantly.

  A total of 8,466 reports of suspected adverse reactions have been received via the Yellow Card scheme in the United Kingdom. The most commonly reported reactions are urticaria, insomnia, rash, headache, dizziness and nausea, which are recognised reactions and are listed in the product information provided to prescribers and patients. It is important to note that these suspected reactions are not necessarily caused by the drug and may relate to other factors such as nicotine withdrawal, other illnesses or other medicines taken concurrently.

  The safety of Zyban continues to be monitored closely by the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority/CSM. The CSM has advised that the balance of the effectiveness of Zyban in helping people to stop smoking, and the health benefits that this brings, compared with the risk of adverse effects remains favourable.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Appliance Safety Testing
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the policy of(a) the Department of Education and (b) each of the Education and Library Boards in Northern Ireland is on appliance safety testing, including the testing of portable appliances. [180295]

  Mr. Gardiner
  In line with Electricity at Work Regulations, which came into effect on 6 January 1992, and guidance from the Health and Safety Executive, the Department of Education's policy in relation to the testing of electrical appliances including portable appliances, is to test all electrical equipment on annual basis.

  Each Education and Library Board has local arrangements in place to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the Electricity at Work Regulations (N.I.) 1991 and the associated Codes of Practice. These arrangements include the routine testing of portable appliances in Board properties and schools by approved contractors and suitably trained staff.

  Comber High School/Bangor Academy
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the South Eastern Education and Library Board has completed a preliminary inquiry in order to establish the need for an equality impact assessment with regard to the public-private partnership scheme to provide new accommodation at Comber High School and Bangor Academy. [179889]

  Mr. Gardiner
  I understand from the Chief Executive of the South Eastern Education and Library Board that the Board carried out a screening exercise which 1562W
  concluded that an Equality Impact Assessment was not required for this project. The Board is awaiting a determination from the Equality Commission in relation to a complaint from UNISON about the Board's Equality Screening exercise.

  Juvenile Justice Centre
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice has to inspect the Juvenile Justice Centre; and if he will make a statement. [179492]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice plans to inspect the Juvenile Justice Centre in the autumn.

  Part-time Police Reserve
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in implementing the Patten Report's proposal to create an enlarged part-time police reserve. [180342]

  Mr. Pearson
  Implementation of the Patten Report's proposal to create an enlarged part-time police reserve rests currently with both the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Policing Board. The enabling legislation has been fully implemented.

  A pilot recruitment exercise in four District Command Unit areas (Lisburn, Coleraine, Newtownabbey and Banbridge) has taken place.

  On 17 October 2003, Denis Bradley, Vice Chairman of the Policing Board, issued a press release stating that all vacancies for part-time reserve officers in the four pilot districts would be filled. The first 10 officers from the pilot entered training in February 2004 and were attested on 5 March. However, the press release also announced the decision to evaluate the pilot recruitment exercise before a further recruitment exercise would take place to improve the process for subsequent rounds of recruitment. Following the outcome of the evaluation it will be a matter for the Policing Board and PSNI to decide the next phase of the recruitment of part-time reserve officers.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officers have been recruited to the police part-time reserve in each of the last four years. [180343]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland has provided the following information on the recruitment of part-time reserve officers in each of the last four years.

  Number of part time reserve recruited

  2001

  —

  2002

  —

  2003

  —

  2004

  108

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officers have(a) resigned and (b) retired from the police part-time reserve in each of the last four years. [180344]
  1563W
  Mr. Pearson
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland have provided the following information in respect of part-time reserve officers who have(a) resigned and (b) retired in each of the last four years.

  Resigned

  Retired

  June to December 2000

  25

  23

  January to December 2001

  51

  24

  January to December 2002

  46

  23

  January to December 2003

  48

  32

  January to June 2004

  23

  18

  Pensioners (Dental Care)
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce free dental care for pensioners in Northern Ireland. [180292]

  Angela Smith
  The Department currently meets 78 per cent. of the total cost of health service dentistry in Northern Ireland. As in the rest of the UK, all dental treatment for pensioners on pension credit guarantee credit is free and other pensioners, depending on circumstances, can get help with the costs involved through the Low-Income Scheme. There are no plans to change current policies in this area.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who the members of the Ulster-Scots Agency are; how many meetings each member has attended since their appointment; and where each meeting was held. [176892]

  Angela Smith
  The following members of the North South Language Body constitute the Board of the Ulster-Scots Agency:

  Jim Devenney

  Alistair Simpson

  1564W

  Dr. Ian Adamson

  Pat Wall

  Bob Stoker

  Dr. Linde Lunney

  Eddie O'Donnell

  Ian Adamson was appointed to the Board on 1 September 2003. The other members were appointed (or reappointed) on 13 December 2002. Since then the Board has met 11 times at the following locations:

  Location

  February 2003

  Franklin House, Belfast

  March 2003

  Waterfront Plaza

  May 2003

  Stranmillis University College

  June 2003

  RIA, Dublin

  July 2003

  Four Season Hotel, Monaghan

  September 2003

  Institute of Ulster-Scots Studies, Londonderry

  November 2003

  Strabane Council Office

  January 2004

  Franklin House

  March 2004

  Hilton Grosvenor, Edinburgh

  April 2004

  Jackson Hotel, Ballybofey, Co Donegal

  May 2004

  Grosvenor House, Belfast

  Of the 11 meetings. Mr. Devenney, Mr. Simpson and Mr. Wall each attended nine: and Mr. Stoker five meetings. Mr. O'Donnell and Dr. Lunney attended 10 meetings during this period; while Dr. Adamson attended five of the six meetings held since his appointment in September 2003.

  Rainbow Network
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding has been provided to the Rainbow Network in each of the last five years. [179659]

  Mr. Spellar
  Records indicate that none of the 11 Northern Ireland Government Departments or the Northern Ireland Office has provided funding to the Rainbow Network during the last five years.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Change Up: A Capacity Building and Infrastructure Framework
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart)
  I am today announcing the launch of Change Up—a programme of investment specifically for capacity building and infrastructure in the voluntary sector.

  Change Up aims to ensure that by 2014 the needs of frontline voluntary and community organisations will be met by support which is available nationwide, structured for maximum efficiency, offering excellent provision which is accessible to all, truly reflecting and promoting diversity and sustainably funded. It sets out an architecture for how that infrastructure should develop and highlights key strategic actions that will bring it into being.

  Change Up has been created in response to the 2002 Cross-Cutting Review on the Role of the Voluntary and Community Sector in Service Delivery which recommended that the voluntary and community sector and Government together draw up a strategy to underpin the capacity of the sector. The Home Office has led on the development of the framework, which has included a three-month consultation period on the document Voluntary and Community Sector Infrastructure—A Consultation Document, published in September 2003.

  Change Up sets out the principal capacity needs of frontline organisations—especially small and medium sized organisations. The main elements are performance improvement, workforce development and leadership, ICT, governance, supporting volunteers and financing voluntary and community sector activity. Each has a clear high level objective and achievable actions which will make a difference.

  It also describes how voluntary and community sector infrastructure should be modernised and reconfigured. The emphasis is on placing the voluntary and community sector in the driving seat, helping it to work with public sector partners and funders to agree the best way to provide high quality and sustainable support to frontline organisations

  Nationally, expertise and leadership in particular areas should be provided by "hubs" which will build on best practice and reduce confusion in the sector by bringing people together to provide strategic leadership, signpost organisations to sources of support, and act as beacons of good practice, reaching directly to frontline organisations to develop advanced thinking and good practice.
  86WS
  The Change Up framework will be used as a planning tool for Government, funders and voluntary and community sector partners at all levels and in different sectors to develop further action and will provide a point of reference for future thinking.

  Implementation will be underpinned by Home Office investment of £72m of ChangeUp funds that will support strategic planning and catalyse modernisation of infrastructure provision to improve its quality and reach.

  Copies of the document are available in the House Library and on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk. A regulatory impact assessment is also available with the document.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal Welfare Strategy
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  I am pleased to announce today the publication of the "Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain."

  The strategy fulfils the Government's commitment made in the strategy for sustainable food and farming to work in partnership with industry, specialists and the wider community to provide an overarching framework for the development and implementation of policies in all areas of animal health and welfare. It is based on the public consultation launched on 15th July 2003 and has been jointly produced by Defra, the Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly Government.

  I have arranged for copies of the "Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain" to be made available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Copies are also available on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/ahws/default.htm

  Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  The Government are publishing the sixth section of the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate (Framework) on waste today. This is available on the sustainable development in Government website. Copies of the website, on CD-Rom, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The waste section of the Framework sets for the first time a Government wide commitment to reduce waste on the Government estate, and increase recycling and composting rates. It encourages Departments to purchase re-usable, recyclable, and recycled products; and return used products to manufacturers. This will make an important contribution to the UK's target on reducing waste sent to landfill, and will help deliver our commitment to moving up the waste hierarchy towards more sustainable waste management practices.

  The Framework now requires all relevant waste management contracts to take account of measures and opportunities for reducing and avoiding the impact of waste, and for collecting waste management data.

  87WS
  Departments must draw up sustainable waste management strategies setting out how they will deal with these issues.

  Our ongoing work on the Framework defines a set of cross-Government targets for sustainable development, and outlines the mechanisms by which Departments will be expected to achieve them. These challenging targets give a clear indication of the Government's continued determination to take a lead in the practical implementation and achievement of sustainable development.

  The Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate can be viewed at www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/sdig/improving/index.htm

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Strategic Investment Board: Report and Accounts 2003–04
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  Today I have placed in the Libraries of the House, copies of the report and accounts 2003–04 of the Strategic Investment Board for Northern Ireland.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions I am announcing the publication of performance statistics for local authority administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit (HB and CTB) for the fourth quarter of 2003–04. A copy of the quarterly statistics for all local authorities in Great Britain has been placed in the Library and has been published on the Department for Work and Pensions website at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/ asd/other_stats.asp

  Publishing these statistics is part of our strategy for reforming housing benefit and for ensuring that local authorities are accountable for their performance in administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit performance statistics show that in the fourth quarter of 2003–04, authorities that returned data reported that:
  new claims were processed in an average of 47 days, compared to 53 days in the fourth quarter of 2002–03;
  some 161 authorities had met the performance standard for processing new claims (36 days), compared to 130 in the same quarter of 2002–03;
  change of circumstances were processed in an average of 14 days, compared with 17 days in the fourth quarter of 2002–03;
  some 179 authorities met the performance standard for processing change of circumstances (9 days), compared to 160 in the same quarter of 2002–03.

  The statistics are un-audited and are provided quarterly by local authorities to my Department.
  88WS
  The audited best value performance information for English local authorities for 2002–03 was published by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 18 December 2003 on the best value performance indicators website at: http://www.bvpi.gov.uk/home.asp. A copy is available in the Library.

  The most recent corresponding data for local authorities in Wales is also for 2002–03. This is published on the Audit Commission website at http://www.lgdu-wales.gov.uk/eng/Project.asp?id = SX99A1-A77F4BA8. A copy of the relevant extract from this site is available in the Library.

  The most recent corresponding data for local authorities in Scotland is also for 2002–03 and is in the Accounts Commission publication "Performance Indicators 2002–03: Benefits, Finance and Corporate Issues", a copy of which is available in the Library.

HEALTH

  Government's Response to the Health Committee's Report on elder abuse
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman)
  The Government's response to the Health Committee's Second Report of Session 2003–04 on elder abuse, Cm 6270, has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  National Health Service Continuing Care
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman)
  I regret that the information I provided in my written statement of 22 June contained an error in line 23 of the table, the entry for the South Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority. Where it read 138 cases eligible for recompense, it should have said 69; and where it read 232 investigations completed, it should have said 163. The correct data is in the table.

  SHA Name

  No. of cases eligible for recompense

  Investigations completed

  Investigations underway

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire SHA

  0

  281

  370

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire SHA

  34

  102

  110

  Essex SHA

  10

  146

  26

  North West London SHA

  10

  181

  191

  North Central London SHA

  8

  64

  61

  North East London SHA

  0

  169

  11

  South East London SHA

  60

  183

  90

  South West London SHA

  62

  194

  21

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear SHA

  27

  126

  172

  County Durham and Tees Valley SHA

  10

  48

  178

  North and East Yorkshire and North Lines SHA

  29

  266

  93

  West Yorkshire SHA

  25

  130

  219

  Cumbria and Lancashire SHA

  15

  154

  186

  Greater Manchester SHA

  5

  102

  240

  Cheshire and Merseyside SHA

  107

  774

  422

  Thames Valley SHA

  4

  181

  202

  89WS

  SHA Name

  No. of cases eligible for recompense

  Investigations completed

  Investigations underway

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight SHA

  30

  386

  121

  Kent and Medway SHA

  24

  186

  44

  Surrey and Sussex SHA

  5

  15

  860

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA

  43

  612

  349

  South West Peninsula SHA

  25

  433

  120

  Dorset and Somerset SHA

  14

  448

  467

  South Yorkshire SHA

  69

  163

  78

  Trent SHA

  0

  236

  79

  Leicester, Northants and Rutland SHA

  29

  202

  22

  Shropshire and Staffordshire SHA

  38

  412

  19

  Birmingham and The Black Country SHA

  10

  213

  73

  West Midlands South SHA

  8

  237

  187

  Total—England

  770

  6,713

  5,011

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  My right hon. Friend the Depute Prime Minister will publish for public consultation on 25 June, a paper on accounting for leaseholders monies.
  90WS
  Service charge payers are entitled to be confident that the money they pay towards the upkeep of their building is held properly, and is used for the purposes it is provided for. This is an area which requires strengthening, and the accounting provisions in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (the Act) provide for this.

  The consultation paper invites comments on the provisions in the Act that make changes to the way in which service charge monies are held, and the information that is provided to service charge payers.

  It sets out the proposals for regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. These regulations will set out the detailed requirements that landlords will have to comply with where the holding of service charge money and the provision of information relating to service charges are concerned.

  Copies of the paper are being sent to a wide range of interested parties including local authorities, housing associations, financial institutions and others with an interest in this issue. The closing date for responses is 24 September.

  Copies of the paper will be made available in the Libraries of the House, and will be available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at http:// www.odpm.gov.uk/ tomorrow.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

Zimbabwe
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Zimbabwe regime concerning proposals for the nationalisation of all farming land.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Zimbabwean state-run newspaper, the Herald, ran an article on 8 June stating that the government would be nationalising all productive farmland and replacing title deeds with 99-year leases. The Zimbabwean Government have clarified that this policy would apply only to land acquired under the fast-track land programme.
Until there is more information and clarity from the Government of Zimbabwe regarding how this proposed nationalisation is to be implemented, it is not possible to determine fully the consequences of this new policy.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. It is sadly clear, is it not, that the Government feel more or less impotent in the face of this increasingly ugly regime? Does the noble Baroness agree that the situation clearly demands not nationalisation of land, which will make the food situation still worse in Zimbabwe, but more internationalisation of pressure on the regime to get rid of Mugabe and to improve its ways? Is the noble Baroness aware that Mugabe has now hatched a deal with the American DIMON Corporation to sell tobacco in exchange for maize to cover up his food problems? Can she confirm that we are in close touch with the American authorities about putting an end to this illegal racket, which breaks every sanction?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I could not agree more in regard to the importance of internationalising this issue. That is precisely why we have worked through the European Union, through our partners in Africa—particular through those in the SADC region and the AU—through the UN and more generally. We are seeking to ensure, through the Commonwealth and other avenues, that pressure is put on the Zimbabwe regime.
I am aware of the rumours with respect to Zimbabwe selling tobacco in exchange for maize. We are in regular touch with our partners in the United States on this issue and will continue to be so.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the real problem that much of the land which has been seized from
1346
commercial farmers is not being cultivated and has reverted to bush? Have there been discussions with SADC about Mugabe's refusal to collaborate with the WFP and the FAO in assessing the crop production and the likely food needs—particularly in the light of the snub to the UN Secretary-General's special envoy, who was in the region assessing the humanitarian needs, and the report by ZimVAC, an agency which includes representatives of the Zimbabwean Government, which found that 2.3 million people are estimated to be in need of extra maize in the 2004–05 season?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble, Lord Avebury, is right. James Morris, who runs the World Food Programme, was in the region and visited every country. However, he did not go to Zimbabwe because he was told that no Minister—nor the President—would be available to meet him. We are dealing here with a government who are prepared to starve their own people as a political tool. I very much hope that SADC leaders and others in the region will bring continuing pressure to bear on a situation that is rapidly becoming a nightmare.
Lord Acton: My Lords, has South Africa shown its hand recently on these matters, particularly in relation to land nationalisation and the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the UN being unable to assess the amount of food required for the next season?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, South Africa has carried out an enormous amount of work behind the scenes. In particular it has tried to foster dialogue between the opposition MDC and the Government of Zimbabwe. As to the question of land, following the report in the Herald, South Africa's Deputy Foreign Minister made some comments, which were reported. But my noble friend needs to remember that we have been trying to get the Government of Zimbabwe to see sense on the issue of land reform. We are not against land reform, but we want to see a sustainable process which ensures that the population of Zimbabwe can continue to be fed.
Lord Elton: My Lords, has the noble Baroness heard on the BBC the series of reports from inside Zimbabwe? Is it not the case that this goes far beyond the question of land and into the problems of AIDS, the torture of sitting MPs and the abuse of their families?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have heard the reports. I heard the one this morning which focused on HIV/ AIDS. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is right: there is not only an issue in relation to land but also in relation to the economic collapse of the Zimbabwean economy and the impact that HIV/AIDS is having in the country, which has one of the highest levels of HIV infection in the world. There is continuing violence,

1347
not only against the opposition MDC but against others, who are afraid to speak out because they fear a violent response.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the SADC countries bringing continued pressure to bear. Are they bringing any pressure to bear and, if so, what is it?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, SADC has made repeated attempts, not just with Mr Mugabe but with other members of his government, to bring to their attention the impact that the ruinous policies are having on Zimbabwe and the region as a whole. There is an outflow of people from Zimbabwe to neighbouring countries, and this pressure has been going on for some time. The noble Lord may recall that when President Mulusi, for example, chaired SADC, he made a number of visits to Zimbabwe precisely to bring these issues to the attention of the government there.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, as an addition to the previous question, do the Zimbabwean Government take any notice whatever of pressure or of discussions that they might have with any other governments?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is absolutely no evidence that the Government of Zimbabwe take any notice of pressure put by anyone at all.

Iraq: National Security Council
11.14 a.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwell Lord Hurd of Westwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements they have made for British representation on the National Security Council in Iraq as provided for in the letters annexed to the United Nations Security Council resolution of 8 June.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, before I answer the Question, I express sympathy and condolence for those who lost loved ones or who were injured in the attacks in Baquba, Ramadi and Mosul this morning.
In his letter of 5 June to the president of the United Nations Security Council, the Iraqi Prime Minister designate, Dr Allawi, outlined how a consultation with the multinational force will work after 30 June. One means will be through the Ministerial Committee for National Security—the MCNS—composed of key Iraqi Ministers, which will set the broad framework for Iraqi security policy. The MNF commander and his deputy will be invited as required by the Iraqi
1348
Prime Minister. Currently, a British lieutenant-general, John McColl, is the deputy MNF commander in Iraq.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I am sure the whole House will join her in the sympathy she has expressed for the victims of the latest upsurge of violence in Iraq.
A new chapter starts next week. As I understand it—and I think the noble Baroness has just confirmed it—the Security Council is the body in Baghdad which will tackle major military questions. The answer to these questions is crucial for British troops, whether or not they are actively involved, as we have seen in the handling of Fallujah and Najaf. Therefore, is it not reasonable to hope that, as the letter she quoted allows, Britain should have, in this new chapter, in one way or another, an influence on these matters which is in proportion to the effort we are making?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I agree that a new chapter starts on 30 June. It is quite right that, given the contribution we have made, we should have the consultation outlined in Dr Allawi's letter to the United Nations Security Council president and in the reciprocal letter written on behalf of the MNF by Colin Powell.
The noble Lord is quite right—the MCNS will be the main forum for deciding defence policy. As well as the Prime Minister, the body will include the Deputy Prime Minister, the Ministers for defence, the interior, justice, foreign affairs and finance. The MNF commander, his deputy and others are expected to be invited to serve on it. The noble Lord will also wish to know that there will be consultation at all levels in Iraq, from the region to the province.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister has given us some information about the composition of the MCNS, particularly the identity of the Ministers who will be serving as members. She also said that the multinational force commander and his deputy would serve on it. Will those individuals be there in a purely advisory capacity? If there is a difference of opinion on matters of security between the members of the committee who are appointed by the Prime Minister and those appointed by the MNF, how are those matters to be resolved, particularly with regard to the sensitive defensive operations referred to in the resolution?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, let us be clear about this. The letters that were exchanged were put out by the Security Council's annexes to UNSCR 1546. They make it clear that the Iraqi Government are responsible for setting the broad framework of Iraqi security policy and that they will consult with the MNF on security policy and sensitive operational issues. The commanders will under no circumstances have direct control of the multinational forces. The whole point is that there should be proper consultation throughout the system and that there

1349
should be flexibility in that system—the very flexibility that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, thought was so sensible when we last discussed this on 7 June.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not the problem with this letter the fact that it excludes any consideration whatever by the people who will be on the new authority at the end of this month? Would it not have been far better if that letter had been drawn up after the authority had been created?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords, I do not think that it would have been. I think that it is far better to have clarity before the handover of power. Your Lordships have, quite rightly and properly, been asking about the relationship between the sovereign government of Iraq and the multinational forces. The exchange of letters which has been endorsed by the Security Council gives us exactly that framework within which to work.
I also draw to your Lordships' attention the very powerful statement on Iraqi defence which was issued on 20 June by Dr Allawi, in which he goes into more detail about how security arrangements will work. I shall ensure that a copy of the statement goes into the Library of your Lordships' House.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that some of use are getting a little uneasy about the way in which American reported pronouncements are already placing restrictions on the new Iraqi Government designate in a way that may undermine the important authority of Mr Allawi and his colleagues? How does she feel about the announcement that the immunity question will be decided by the Americans, that the public safety aspirations of Mr Allawi have been denied him, and that all ports and airports—there may be a reason for this—are to be under Allied/coalition or MNF control rather than Iraqi control? Does she not agree that it is important to get on quickly with having a British voice at the centre of these evolving security arrangements so that we can get some balance and not see the new Iraqi Government weakened before they have even started?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I counsel the noble Lord against reacting to every single reported statement of an American point of view. We are in daily contact with the Americans about all these issues and have a strong relationship with the State Department. However, your Lordships will be aware that there are many arms to the American administration. Perhaps the noble Lord is reflecting some of the other points of view emerging in the United States. I assure him that the British Government have a clear voice on these issues.
We discussed the question of immunity and the continuation of or adjustments to CPA Order 17 only yesterday. I was able to tell your Lordships that so far the Iraqis have not raised any fundamental problems over the immunities question. I suggest that when we
1350
can see the full picture of everything that has been agreed on 30 June we will be able to take up any points of detail on the basis of facts rather than speculation.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Lieutenant-General McColl, although a soldier, is certainly well placed and experienced to carry out this function, having done such a marvellous job in Afghanistan in bringing together the security services and the civilian population? Does she agree that the appointment is a particularly good one?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes my Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Dean emphatically. Lieutenant-General McColl took up his post in April this year. I hope that he will complete his tour of duty, which will end towards the end of this year. As my noble friend said, he is very experienced and is an exemplar of the way in which the British Army have conducted themselves in Iraq. That is why they have won so many friends among the population of Iraq.

Smoking in Workplaces
11.23 a.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to ban smoking in all workplaces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, our wide-ranging consultation on public health includes questions about what action should be taken to tackle second-hand smoke. One of the options discussed is whether legislation should be introduced to ban smoking in workplaces and in enclosed public places. The consultation period has been extended until 28 June and responses to this consultation will inform a White Paper later in the year.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that this is now a matter of urgency? Thousands of people in the United Kingdom die from active smoking and hundreds die from passive smoking each year. The period of consultation has been extended. When can we have action? If there is not to be action to prevent people exercising a choice and going into pubs, restaurants or cafes where there is smoking, surely immediate steps should be taken to prevent people being forced to go into those places. In their workplaces, people have no such alternative. So how long must we wait for action?
Lord Warner: My Lords, in 2002 an ONS Omnibus survey showed that smoking is either banned throughout, or limited to smoking rooms or areas, in 86 per cent of workplaces, so a great deal of progress has been made on the workplace protection of people from second-hand smoke. I suggest that we need a mature debate about how to tackle the key health challenges and

1351
how to support people to become, as Derek Wanless says, fully engaged in their own health. We are taking these matters forward on a basis of partnership and consultation and will be publishing a White Paper later this year.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to recent polls, public opinion opposes smoking bans in hospitality venues and supports choice with facilities provided for nonsmokers and smokers alike? Is the Minister also aware that I share the views held by national government that individual choice on whether smoking should be banned in public places is preferable to legislation?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am always pleased to have a variety of views expressed to me on this subject from all sides of the House—a warm range of views is coming from behind me in particular. We have committed ourselves to the path of consultation with the public and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support. We know that the public has conflicting views on the extent to which there should be restrictions on smoking in pubs and restaurants. That is why we are going carefully through a proper process of consultation.
Lord Addington: My Lords, is there any truth in the matter that if a new drug were introduced as damaging to people as second-hand smoke it would be banned? Under those circumstances, should not the Government take vigorous action to create more smoke-free environments?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we are well aware that second-hand smoking is dangerous. We understand that. We have instigated research in this area and are continuing to get work done. At the risk of becoming even more boring than normal, as I said, we are going through a process of public consultation. We will continue that process and produce a White Paper in the autumn.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend is never boring. When he assesses the results of the consultation, will he take into account the experiences of the Republic of Ireland? It appears from surveys there that both a majority of non-smokers and a majority of smokers welcome the ban. If smokers and non-smokers are united on an issue, surely the way forward is clear?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am glad to have been able to provide my noble friend with entertainment. He is of course right. Ireland's experience has been encouraging. We know that there has been good compliance with the provision on smoke-free workplaces. The Government will take account of that experience in considering their position in this area.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington,
1352
recently informed your Lordships that, ever since she had given up smoking, passive smoking had become one of her few remaining pleasures? Would the Minister do whatever he can to ensure that the noble Baroness never becomes a passive Member of your Lordships' House, because she gives us such joy and entertainment?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure that any therapy that would stop the noble Baroness being a major contributor to your Lordships' debates would prove to be both unfundable and unfindable. We are always glad to have her contributions.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that some of the so-called research that demonstrates attitudes towards smoking in public places and in the hospitality industry needs to be taken with a substantial pinch of salt? A lot of that research is commissioned and paid for by the tobacco industry. Is it not the case that most responsible members of the hospitality industry are looking to the Government for a lead and would welcome a nationwide ban, provided that it applied everywhere?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we are aware that there are differences of view within the hospitality industry, just as there are among the public. That is why we are going through a process of consultation. We will take all these views into account and come forward with a White Paper in the autumn.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although I always hesitate to disagree with my noble friend Lady Trumpington, would it help the Government to know that I was a regular smoker from the age of 19 to the age of 66 when I gave it up, and that that has enabled me to live nearly 30 years longer?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord is echoing the views expressed by Sir Richard Doll, who himself was a smoker for 19 years and who, at the age of 91, is now producing his 50-year study. He has shown conclusively that it is never too late to give up.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, would the Minister acknowledge—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am sorry, but we must move on to the next Question.

Northern Ireland: European Parliament Election Riots
11.30 a.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to close those voting centres in Northern Ireland where rioting occurred during the recent European Parliament election; and what

1353
assessment they have made of the impact of this development on the electoral process in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the rioting that took place in Londonderry in the evening of 10 June is a serious matter, and the Government condemn those who tried to undermine and disrupt the democratic process. The location of polling places is an operational matter for the Chief Electoral Officer. I understand that a decision has yet to be taken as to whether the polling places attacked will be used at future elections.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am a little disappointed by the ambivalence of that Answer. I was hoping that the Minister would now confirm unequivocally that she disagrees with the Northern Ireland Chief Electoral Officer when he says that he may be obliged to close polling centres where rioting occurs. He said that,
"people who would have gone to them will just have to walk a few extra miles to go somewhere else".
What way is that to treat the electorate?
The Northern Ireland people sustained the democratic process throughout the toughest years of violence, and many of us see that attitude as unworthy of someone in the Chief Electoral Officer's position.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, may not be aware that the Chief Electoral Officer will receive a report from the Senior Presiding Officer shortly. It would be totally remiss of me or the Government to comment in advance of that report being received. In addition, the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland devised a new polling station scheme in 2003. That resulted in the number of polling stations increasing to 1,532 and the number of polling places increasing to 612.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, that report refers to specific polling stations, but a general principle applies here. Will a handful of rioting republicans be able to close down polling stations? That would be a denial of democratic rights for the overwhelming majority of people who wish to vote in those polling stations. Is not the responsibility with the Government to ensure that there is proper policing and security at every polling station?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that no decision has yet been taken. We must wait for the report. Of course, there is a responsibility to balance the democratic right of our citizens as against the safety and security of those who work in our polling places. We need to ensure that we get that balance right. I underline the fact that no decision has been taken.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness the Lord Seal is absolutely right to condemn the rioting in that or any other place. After the fiasco earlier this month, I hope that there are no suggestions
1354
that we extend postal voting to Northern Ireland. If the situation is such, as it clearly was, that the police were unable to keep control, is that not a very good reason for the Government to change their mind and keep the police reserve in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is no evidence whatever that the police were unable to keep control. The rioting did not occur during polling hours; no one lost his opportunity to vote; and elsewhere in Northern Ireland the election passed off peacefully, with no reported incidents at any other polling place. The priorities of the Chief Electoral Officer and the Chief Constable lie with enabling the people of Northern Ireland to exercise their democratic right to vote. However, I remind noble Lords that they must ensure, too, the safety and security of all electoral staff.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal said about balancing the different problems. While the Government are considering what to do when they get the report, would she not agree that it is of supreme importance to maintain the integrity of polling stations, and that we should consider shutting them down only in the most extreme circumstances?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, with respect to the point about the integrity of polling stations. That is not an issue for us—we wholeheartedly condemn the violence. But I have to remind noble Lords that the location of polling places is an operational matter for the Chief Electoral Officer, and he will be considering that issue in the context of the report that he receives. I underline the fact that our concern with regard to protecting the democratic right of our citizens is paramount.

Civil Partnership Bill [H.L.]
11.35 a.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Civil partnership]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. I:
Page I, line 4, after second "a" insert "mutually committed"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak to Amendment No. 9, which is also tabled in the names of my noble friend Lord Lester and myself.
The position has been somewhat changed by the publication of government Amendments Nos. 18 and 21, which may provide a solution to the problem that we envisaged. However, I still wish to move Amendment No. 1 for the purpose of explaining what we are concerned about.
Civil marriage has been defined in the common law since 1866 as,
"the union of one man with one woman voluntarily entered into … to the exclusion of all others".
The present Bill contains no similar definition of what constitutes a relationship that is registerable as a civil partnership. This absence has led, in Committee and again in amendments tabled for the present stage, to suggestions that access to civil partnership should be widened beyond exclusively committed same-sex couples to a wider group of home sharers and close relatives. These amendments make it clear that a civil partnership involves a commitment akin to that entered into by marrying heterosexual couples, and is therefore not appropriate to be extended to the relationship of home sharers or close relatives, who—under the amendments tabled at this stage—are of different sexes.
At Grand Committee on 12 May, my noble friend Lord Lester stated our support for the principle behind the amendment on that occasion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, which would have inserted a solemn declaration of mutual commitment between the civil partners. We supported that amendment as it reflected the position in civil marriages and emphasised the solemnity and longevity of the commitment being entered into.
In the Bill, Clause 8(4)(a) states that the partners must make a written declaration that each,
"proposed civil partner believes that there is no impediment of kindred or affinity or other lawful hindrance to the formation of the civil partnership".
That parallels the relevant provision in the first half of the Marriage Act 1949, which states that each of the partners must make an oral declaration that,
"I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I may not be joined in matrimony".
The only difference between the two provisions is that under the present Bill the declaration has to be in writing, whereas under the Marriage Act 1949 an oral declaration is required.
The problematic area for this Bill is that it does not have the second half of the Marriage Act provision, which contains the contracting words. That is where each partner says,
"I call upon these persons here present to witness that I take thee to be my lawful wedded wife",
or husband. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, tried to remedy this by tabling an amendment that each of the proposed civil partners should state that the civil partnership is for life. We agree that that is the correct principle. But, in fact, there are no words in the Marriage Act that state that the commitment is for life. We have therefore tabled an amendment with words that more closely reflect the contracting words used in the Marriage Act. I beg to move.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I do not question the motivation of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester of
1356
Herne Hill, in tabling this amendment. They have always had equality at the heart of all they have done. However, I have some concerns with Amendment No. 1, which may in practice have unintended consequences that would not be at all helpful. I have said throughout our debates that civil partnership should contain those rights and responsibilities that heterosexual couples can acquire through civil marriage. 1 am concerned that adding the concept of relationships being "mutually committed" creates an additional hurdle that heterosexuals do not have to clear. That is not fair. I thought that essentially we wanted parity with civil marriage but this amendment would introduce a new and additional test that clearly moves away from the position of equality.
My concern, in particular, is that the new provision could be called into play at a time when people are most vulnerable. For example, one could envisage a situation where a recently deceased person's will could be contested by an aggravated family member on the basis that the partnership had not been "mutually committed". That would be a mischief that could not arise in the case of a married heterosexual couple. I do not believe that the noble Lord would want that to happen. I do not.
I have no objection to the words being added by Amendment No. 9. Indeed, I think it is helpful, giving couples greater clarity about what they are committing themselves to. My question is whether it is required on the face of the Bill. I wonder whether this could be done through guidance. I understood from the Minister in Grand Committee that wording very similar to this would probably be adopted for the oral consent required. Will she clarify the position? If that will be the case, I think it should satisfy both the noble Lord and me on this point.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I feel that one should not criticise anything that is done in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in view of his very important pioneering work in this field but I have two comments to make. One is on the substance of the amendment and the other is on what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said.
First, in effect, the words "mutually committed" add nothing at all to the Bill. If people have applied for this relationship or contract, or whatever it is, it must surely be presumed that they are mutually committed. If they are mutually committed, to what are they mutually committed? What does "mutually" mean? This is simply adding confusing words to what is already a fairly confused situation.
I welcome the fact that "relationship" is not defined in the Bill. If a relationship were to be defined, which is what lies behind this amendment, one would be in very deep waters indeed. There is no reference to homosexuality in the definition in the Bill, and a very good thing too. People have a rather limited idea of any relationship where sex is involved. After all, there are relationships that can be loving, committed and celibate. If one attempts to define the nature of "relationship" by words of one kind or another, one will merely create a harvest of difficulties for the future.

1357
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, my second point is that I do not think that it is helpful constantly to draw parallels between the facilities provided by the Bill and traditional Christian marriage, as some people do. The words that are quoted from the Prayer-Book are applicable only to a sacramental marriage. A sacramental marriage cannot be contracted by those who are of the same sex. Much of the opposition to the Bill comes from those who feel that it is an attack on Christian marriage or, indeed, on civil marriage, which has its roots in a Christian tradition. I therefore think that these references to the Prayer-Book and the attempt to find similar words are not helpful.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits clown, does he accept that the wording to which I referred was not from the Prayer-Book but from the Marriage Act? It applies to civil marriages. Of course, if one goes back far enough in history, the concept of civil marriages may derive from Christian marriage, but it is quite clear that for many decades past, if not centuries, it has applied to marriages between non-Christians as well as between Christians.
11.45 a.m.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. As one would expect, he has put the point that I was making much more clearly, definitively, authoritatively and legally than I could. I am extremely grateful to him for explaining his remarks and for doing so in such a helpful and enlightening manner.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I certainly support the principle behind this amendment to draw attention to the importance of commitment. It is clear from experience and all modern research that a stable committed family relationship is important for the upbringing of children. We are looking at a situation where same-sex couples are increasingly going to adopt children and perhaps have children by other means, as technology advances. I have been extremely concerned about the Bill. Unstable, uncommitted civil partnerships might enable same-sex couples to adopt children and leave them in a position of insecurity. I believe that the word "commitment" should be crafted into the Bill in some way.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is seeking to do, even if the Minister says in her clarification that guidance will be introduced to include the words of commitment that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is seeking and the word "committed" itself on the face of Bill. It has always seemed to me that the Bill has two functions and that that lies behind the passions that the debate arouses. One function is to rectify some civil disabilities that same-sex couples experience. The second is to recognise the moral seriousness of what the couples are undertaking, and have undertaken for many years and generations, in a culture where that is particularly important since commitment over a long
1358
period is extremely difficult to achieve in any area of life. It will not really do to say that all we are trying to do in the Bill is to rectify civil disabilities. If we simply confine ourselves to that, then I think that we shall not meet the needs of many of those whom the Bill is designed to assist.
I therefore think it preferable that the word "commitment" and some words of commitment be on the face of the Bill, because that is one of the things which people are looking to Parliament to provide for them. I think that it is a proper thing to look to a Parliament to do. I say that, of course, without derogating from the seriousness of the debate that goes on particularly in religious communities, and particularly in my own Church, about whether it is proper for people to enter into such commitments. The fact of the matter is that, in terms of the life of our community, many people do. I think that the amendments which the noble Lord is proposing do in fact confer an element of recognition that this Parliament should not withhold.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, and my noble friend Lord Alli in saying that the Government clearly do not intend to question the intent behind Amendment No. 1. We have always made it clear that the need for the Bill arises from the fact that same-sex couples in supportive relationships cannot marry but deserve the opportunity of legal recognition. The rights and responsibilities that will accompany the relationship are clear evidence of that. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, recognises that.
The inclusion of the words "mutually committed" in Clause 1 would, however, present problems in their practical implications for the Bill, as has already been outlined in this debate. We understand why the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, would seek to highlight the point. However, all same-sex couples will make their own decision about how they choose to live out their obligations to one another. If we included the words "mutually committed" in Clause 1, there would be a real question as to how it would be possible to set a common standard to define what the phrase means.
Perhaps I may give a couple of examples. First, although the Bill sets out eligibility provisions, that the parties are "mutually committed" is not one of them. However, the fact that they agree to support each other and to take on the many obligations in respect of each other that attach to their new status of civil partner speaks for itself and is evidence of the level of commitment that they are both agreeing to take on.
Secondly, the Bill already makes provision for the dissolution of a civil partnership on the evidence of unreasonable behaviour. The notion of being mutually committed is not used here and we would not wish it to be imposed as a test of any kind. Just as heterosexual couples choose to share their lives together and meet their responsibilities towards each other, civil partners

1359
will be expected to meet their rights and responsibilities. How they choose to do so really should be a matter for them.
I turn to Amendment No. 9. We have had a very useful and constructive debate on this issue on Second Reading, in Grand Committee and now at Report stage. It is clear that noble Lords are concerned that those who form a civil partnership should make a spoken statement to each other, or exchange words, during steps taken to form a civil partnership. Perhaps I may therefore explain why the Government have not included any spoken words in the registration procedure.
First and most importantly, in civil marriage, the point at which the marriage is formed is when the spoken vows are exchanged in the course of the marriage ceremony. Registration records the formation of the relationship which has already occurred. The structure of the Bill is somewhat different as it establishes a quite different procedure for the formation of civil partnership, and spoken words are not part of that registration process.
For civil partnership, by contrast, it is the signing of the civil partnership document in an administrative procedure that marks the moment of the formation of the partnership and the change of status. We believe that that is simple, clear and all that is necessary. To add into that procedure a requirement for these spoken words would alter the emphasis of the procedure. In our view that is unnecessary and could introduce confusion about what was the vital step in the formation of the civil partnership.
Secondly, civil partners will have the option of exchanging spoken words with each other. Local authorities are able to offer the option of a ceremony which would very likely include spoken words, and couples will also be free to organise any religious blessing with any vows or other statements that they might wish to make to each other.
We have, however, listened very carefully to what noble Lords have said. While we still believe that it would be problematic to prescribe spoken words, we have tabled amendments to Clauses 14 and 25. Clause 14(2) provides that a,
"civil partnership schedule must contain such information as may be prescribed by regulations".
Clause 25(4)(b) provides that the Registrar General's licence,
"must contain such other information",
in addition to that prescribed in Clause 25(4)(a),
"as may be prescribed by regulations".
The purpose of the amendments is to widen the scope of Clause 14(2) and Clause 25 so that regulations may make provision as to the content of a civil partnership document rather than just the information in it. That will allow for the inclusion in the civil partnership document of a form of words.
The Government will consider what is the most appropriate form of words to be printed on the civil partnership document as part of the implementation work to be taken forward after Royal Assent. I hope
1360
that that will satisfy the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and give voice to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Alli. I am hopeful that the amendments will meet the noble Lords' concerns. These proposals would not upset the structure of the registration procedures, as it would remain clear that the signing of the civil partnership document was the legally significant event.
I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, confident in the knowledge that this issue has been properly taken on board and will be satisfactorily dealt with.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful for the support that our amendments have received from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. I also understand the concerns, particularly about Amendment No. 1, that have been expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Alli and Lord St John of Fawsley. The Government's proposals in their Amendments Nos. 18 and 21 potentially go a long way towards meeting the problems that led us to table our two amendments in this group. In the circumstances, we will of course support government Amendments Nos. 18 and 21. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 2:
Page I. line 4, leave out "relationship" and insert "contract"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment arises from debates that we had in Committee where we sought to argue that the wording of the Bill as it stands is not satisfactory as regards same-sex couples entering into a partnership. I listened with great interest to the remarks made a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. It seems to me that they were wholly inconsistent with her rejection of the arguments put forward in favour of this amendment in Committee. We argue that a civil partnership is a contract not a relationship. That issue gave rise on the one hand to highly emotional statements by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others and, on the other hand, to comments by others who considered that legislation was a matter of logic rather than emotion.
I believe that we were all influenced by the speech of my noble friend Lord Elton at Second Reading. He spoke of the importance of loving relationships. However, I fear that we cannot legislate for love. We need to set down very precisely that a civil partnership is a contract. Everything that the noble Baroness said about registration a moment ago seemed to imply the registration of a contract, not the registration of a relationship. Indeed, it is quite possible for there to be a relationship between same-sex couples which is neither a civil partnership nor a contract. Yet the Bill seems to assume that all civil partnerships constitute relationships. Of course, in one sense that is true, but there are also relationships that are not civil partnerships. That is why it seems to us more appropriate to insert the word "contract" than "relationship".
I shall not delay your Lordships much longer. However, in the course of our discussions in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who I see is not present, raised several issues in the context of this amendment with regard to the legal situation in a number of cases in Canada. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, replied to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in a response covering several pages. I do not think that either the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, or your Lordships would wish her to repeat several pages of commentary on the Canadian cases.
At the end of the day, this is quite a simple point. However, it is more than a drafting point. It is a matter about which we need to be clear and it is something that we ought to amend. I hope that on reflection the Government, particularly in the light of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, a moment ago, will be prepared to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Noon
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I always feel a certain sadness at disappointing the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, but I shall disappoint him on this occasion.
As the noble Lord indicated, we had a very useful discussion in Grand Committee on Amendment No. 2. I listened very closely to what was said then and to what has now been said by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. First, I shall clarify what we mean when we use the word "relationship" and why we resist the word "contract".
When two people register as civil partners of each other, they form a civil partnership that is a new legal relationship established by this Bill to give the civil partners legal recognition of their life together as a couple. It is the civil partnership that is a new legal relationship between the people. I respectfully suggest that the noble Lord should not confuse the new relationship of civil partnership with any pre-existing personal relationship between a couple, although a loving and committed personal relationship would be the very reason that a couple might decide to form a civil partnership in the first place. The new legal relationship of civil partnership begins only when two people register as civil partners of each other.
The noble Lord wishes to describe civil partnership as a contract. However, civil partnership is not governed by the law of contract and there is no room for individual variation of the statutory rules governing eligibility, or governing formation or dissolution of a civil partnership, nor of those setting out its consequences.
The change of status from single person to civil partner affects a couple's relationship with each other. After the formation of their civil partnership they would have an entirely new legal relationship with each other. Forming a civil partnership also affects their status; in other words, their position as an individual in relation to everyone else. Each would now he a civil partner. This change of status is permanent in that on the ending of a civil partnership, civil partners do not revert to being single people. They
1362
will be marked by having been in a civil partnership in that they will be former civil partners or a surviving civil partner. Civil partnership is a new statutory relationship that provides same-sex couples with legal recognition of their life together as a couple.
It is very important for us to understand that what same-sex couples seek is an acknowledgement that their relationship is real, has legal significance and carries rights and responsibilities. It is not a commercial contract; it is something very different. With that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. Nothing that I have just said contradicts what I said in support of the earlier amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, your Lordships will reach their own conclusions. We have much expertise in this House but, so far as I know, we do not have a professor of logic, which is what we need in the context of what the noble Baroness has just said.
The noble Baroness mentioned legal recognition. However, the word "relationship" does not give that legal recognition—it is the registration that clearly forms a contract. The noble Baroness said that same-sex couples want legal confirmation of their new status. That is surely best put forward as a contract. They may have had a relationship for many years prior to this legislation, but it is not the same thing as confirming that in a legal and registratable form.
The noble Baroness said that she is always sad to turn down an amendment that I propose. That is entirely reciprocated; I am always sad when she is sad that she has turned down an amendment of mine. I shall withdraw the amendment but I am not at all sure that we should not sort this out and return to it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 4, after "relationship" insert "between two people in the categories set out in section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples) or"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 10, 12, 22, 23, 40, 43, 66, 68, 69 and 70 which stand in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and the noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord Maginnis.
I have received many letters from members of the public who share my concern, and, indeed, a great many letters and messages from noble Lords from all parts of the House who support what I seek to achieve.
This group of amendments would extend the benefits of the Bill to family members who have lived together on a long-term basis. Under my amendments, two sisters or any two close relations who have lived together for 12 years would be able to register a partnership and take advantage of the provisions of the Bill. These are benefits which are currently unique to married couples and under the Government's Bill will be extended only to one other group; namely, those in same-sex relationships.
If a daughter gives up her job to look after her elderly mother for 20 years, should she be denied the same rights, including the financial benefits, which the Bill gives to same-sex couples? If a niece goes to live with her disabled aunt and looks after her for 15 years, is her love and commitment for her close relation considered to be less important than that of a same-sex couple? The niece has to pay inheritance tax if she inherits her aunt's estate, but the survivor of a same-sex couple in a registered partnership would not. Is this situation fair and just? I think not.
In order to meet the demands of same-sex couples who want to be treated in exactly the same way as married couples, the Government are proposing inheritance tax exemption, pension rights, next of kin rights and the right to take key medical decisions for a partner. Those are all rights enjoyed by married couples. If they are to be extended, why should they not be extended to others in long-term caring and stable relationships?
All those rights could have been dealt with on an issue-by-issue basis rather than wrapped up in the Bill, which has proved a complete nightmare for the Government in terms of complexity. Even now, five government departments are dealing with it. There were 120 pages of government amendments added after the Bill had its first day in Grand Committee, and two days ago we had a further 150 government amendments. I have been a Member of this House for 13 years, and have never witnessed such a convoluted mess. Frankly, it makes nonsense of attempts to perform our scrutiny role. Is that really an efficient legislative process?
My contention is that the Bill will give rise to greater injustice than it claims to address. If it remains as it is, it will without doubt make the situation even more unjust. I emphasise the point about justice, as we are told that the Bill is not a gay marriage Bill but one about removing injustice. The Government insist that a civil partnership is not gay marriage. The name is clearly different, but anyone with any nous can see that the legal rights are the same. If the amendments are accepted, the House will be making it much clearer that the Bill is not a gay marriage Bill. If civil partnership were to become an arrangement open to close relations, the Government could have greater confidence in their assertion that the Bill was not a gay marriage Bill but only one to remove injustice.
Leaving aside all the arguments about gay marriage, I recognise that many support the Bill because they are concerned that the law deals too harshly with people in a long-term same-sex relationship. I understand that position clearly, but such problems are not unique to same-sex couples. They are commonplace in family relationships, too, yet such people are excluded from the legislation.
The Government have raised two principal arguments in favour of the Bill. The first is that it is a means of giving legal recognition to same-sex couples, and the second that it is necessary to address cases of hardship. Recognition and the issue of hardship
1364
cannot be separated. Legal recognition under the Bill means essentially the same legal rights and privileges that married couples hold. Civil partnerships give to same-sex couples the legal means to address the issues of hardship, which have been well rehearsed before the House. However, under the Bill, family members will be denied access to civil partnership. It follows that they will be denied the very remedies in cases of hardship that would have been available had they been a same-sex couple.
I contend that the Bill as drafted will lead to great injustice and discrimination against the family. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, on 17 January 2001, the noble and learned Lord the then Lord Chancellor told the House that,
"support for families is at the core of this Government's policies".—[Official Report, 17/1/01; col. 1160.]
Let them prove that they believe it; that is all I ask.
The Bill sends out the message that long-term caring family relationships do not matter as much as same-sex relationships, irrespective of their duration. Ministers have argued that same-sex couples in longterm relationships—loving, committed, celibate and so on, as my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley said—were discriminated against in law and suffered serious hardship. However, the cases of hardship of which we have heard in this House and in Grand Committee applying to same-sex couples also apply for the most part to family members who live together. Their position in terms of inheritance tax, joint assessment for income-related benefit and tenancy succession rights is essentially the same as for single-sex couples. The Bill provides legal remedy for same-sex couples, but not family members.
12.15 p.m.
A son caring for his widowed father who has Alzheimer's disease has to pay tax on his inheritance, despite the fact that he has given up his job to care for his father and could well be regarded as unemployable as a result. That could mean being forced to sell the family house to pay the tax. Most of us will know of family members who share a house on a long-term basis—sons or daughters who live with their elderly parents, providing care and companionship; sisters who move in together after they are widowed and live out their old age together; nieces and nephews who give up well paid jobs to move in with aunts or uncles, to nurse them in long-term illnesses; and so on.
The Government say that the Bill is not the place to deal with relationships other than same-sex ones. Where then is the place for dealing with them? What prospect is there that the Government will introduce a Bill specifically to deal with the needs of two family members to live together? We have been given slight and vague promises, but we need more categorical statements about if, when and where. I suggest frankly that there is no realistic prospect of such a Bill. If we want to protect such people, we must amend this Bill today.
The amendment to Clause 1 is a paving amendment, which makes it clear that civil partnerships can be extended to any two people in accordance with the

1365
proposed new clause. Under that new clause, any two family members closely related to each other can enter into a civil partnership, the proviso being that in order to apply they must have lived together for a continuous period of 12 years, and both be at least 30 years of age. Proposed new Schedule A1 in Amendment No. 23 sets out the family relationships covered by my amendments. It is the standard list of close relationships of affinity and consanguinity, which is used in the Bill and in marriage law. It covers sibling, parental and grandparental relations, and aunts and uncles. Under my amendments, the two people do not have to be of the same sex, so may be of opposite sex.
The amendments to Clause 3 are consequential, and the amendment to Clause 35 permits the Secretary of State—I ask which Secretary of State; it is not clear as five of them are involved in the Bill—to lay down regulations requiring proof that there has been a 12-year period of living together. Under tax law, gifts given to an individual more than seven years before death are exempt from inheritance tax. Any family that merely wanted to avoid inheritance tax would not use my amendments to do so, because of the 12-year rule.
In Grand Committee, I tabled much broader amendments that sought to protect carers and friends who live together for a minimum of seven years. I underline the fact that the amendments today are even more tightly drawn and cover only those in close family relationships. It is those relationships where much of the real hardship arises. The 12-year period in my amendments makes it clear that the living arrangement must be a long-term one. It is a significant period, of course; 12 years is a long time, but putting forward that threshold test ensures that only the most sympathetic cases are covered. In practice, the beneficiaries will very often be older people who have lived together for many years. The 12-year home-sharing requirement also reduces the number of potential beneficiaries, which will greatly lessen the impact on the public purse.
The Government's Bill states that no member of a civil partnership can enter into a marriage or another civil partnership without dissolving their current partnership. That provision would also apply to my amendments. So, if two sisters entered into a civil partnership and one of them later wished to marry, she would be free to do so provided that the civil partnership was dissolved. The Bill's mechanism, already in place for dissolution of a civil partnership, would give to each party a legally regulated way of dividing the assets and property.
The Minister may say that the mechanisms for entering or exiting civil partnerships are inappropriate for, say, two sisters. If that is the objection then either the Government or I could table amendments at Third Reading to rectify that objection. But the principle at stake is whether a daughter who sacrifices many opportunities in her life to care for a parent deserves recognition. The question for today is whether two sisters who devote a lifetime of care to each other should be ignored by the Bill, with only same-sex relationships meriting the benefits that currently only apply to married couples.
It is true that close relations already have some legal rights in relation to each other—for example, hospital visiting rights or inheritance in the case of intestacy. Family members are currently broadly in the same position as same-sex couples regarding the succession of a tenancy. But it is important to remember that close relations are not exempt from inheritance tax and capital gains tax.
When the noble Lord, Lord Alli, spoke in support of a Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, inheritance tax was the first issue that he raised. He read from a letter written by the partner of Lord Montague of Oxford for whom the issue of inheritance tax was critical. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, told us that Lord Montague had to sell his possessions to pay the inheritance tax and said:
"Surely this cannot be right. It is unfair to make people sell their family homes".—[Official Report, 25/1/02; col. 1697.]
That is my point exactly.
The Bill provides that those people in same-sex relationships through taking out a civil partnership will be able to obtain many more rights than those in family relationships. A central part of the Government's case for the Bill is the unique difficulties that arise for those in committed long term relationships. They have the problems of inheritance tax, the questions of tenancy, obtaining a survivor's pension, and so on. Such difficulties may arise in same sex relationships, but they also arise in ordinary families. Ordinary families are no less deserving—again, let us remember this Government's commitment to the family. Ordinary families' difficulties are no less serious and their legal status should not be inferior.
Many noble Lords agree that it is unfair to discriminate so blatantly against family members. There are many noble Lords who strongly support the Bill, but who still wish to see it amended to benefit family members. My noble friend Lady Wilcox made that clear in her speech on 12 May 2004, at col. GC119. Alan Duncan, who speaks on these issues for Her Majesty's Opposition in another place, also made that point in an article in the Evening Standard on 30 March 2004.
In summary, under the Bill same-sex couples in a civil partnership are given a higher status than family relationships. That is unfair and is certain to lead to blatant injustice against family members who all their lives have shown sacrificial love and commitment. It is right to correct this anomaly now. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I applaud the stated purpose in bringing the Bill forward, which is to remove injustice in a variety of matters—tenancy, pensions, inheritance and other areas suffered by people who choose to live together.
However, in spite of what is often said, I have noted that it is not the Government's intention to introduce same-sex marriage in the Bill and that its scope is not restricted to couples in a sexual relationship. The Church received assurances in that regard from the Department of Trade and Industry—one of the five departments involed in this matter.

1367
Whatever the source of individual phrases, whether it is the Book of Common Prayer or the Marriage Act, the public doctrine of marriage in this country, as I understand it, remains grounded in the Christian tradition. Any legislation must take account of that fact. If that is the case, could not the social justice and compassionate aspect of the Bill have been achievable through legislation that does not look so much like marriage? I do not blame people who are confused by the Government's intention. In the Bill the requirements of age, of prohibited degrees of relationship, of dissolution and nullity mirror those in matrimonial law. So which is it? Some clarification would be useful.
By focussing so much on same-sex couples not related to one another, whether in a sexual relationship or not, the Bill neglects provision for the significant number of close relatives who choose to live together for mutual support or to care for each other. If the Bill is about dealing with the difficulties faced by those in long-term relationships, then how can it be just to ignore the case of two sisters living together for support and protection? If we are addressing injustice, can we overlook the plight of the daughter who dedicates her life to caring for an elderly parent? What is the status of vulnerable adults who live with a parent or another relative?
In this day and age it is important to affirm the family and to support those who make sacrifices, sometimes almost beyond our ken, to care for members of their families. If the intention of the Bill is really to address unfairness—and I have heard that said so often—rather than introduce social engineering through the back door, the Minister, the Government and noble Lords will have no hesitation in considering the amendments with sympathy. They seem to be eminently sensible, modest in scope and practical. I hope that there will be much support for them in the House.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. This matter was discussed at some length in Grand Committee, but the characteristic of Grand Committees is that they may be grand in title, but seldom in the number of people that attend them. Today the House is almost unnaturally packed for a Thursday, but then this Bill is, after all, about sex and tax. That normally brings in a number of Members of your Lordships' House.
The Bill is to some considerable extent a parody on marriage, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester implied, because in virtually every respect it makes civil partnership a mirror image of the state of marriage. Indeed, in the monumentally incompetent manner in which the Bill has been dealt with in this House, as observed by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, the Government have now tabled amendments to the Civil Evidence Act 1968 that would accord to members of a civil partnership the same privileges in relation to their immunity from being compelled to give evidence against each other as those accorded to man and wife. There is virtually no advantage which accrues to marriage which is not being encompassed in the Bill.
1368
It is also a rather cruel Bill because it would appear to be suffused with unfair discrimination. The Government know this full well. In June 2003, a consultation document was issued by the Women & Equality Unit of the Department of Trade and Industry. As a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I wonder what the Bill has to do with trade and industry. But never mind, it had to come from somewhere, I suppose, and presumably the Home Secretary did not want to do it—
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but he will know that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is also the Minister for Women and Equality. On that basis, the Bill comes under that department and the Home Office wholeheartedly supports the Bill.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I would regard what the noble Baroness said as an excuse as much as an explanation. But at any rate, the document issued by the Women & Equality Unit of the DTI states at page 18, paragraph 2.6:
"The creation of a new legal status that is open only to same-sex couples and not to opposite-sex couples would amount to a difference in treatment. However, the Government believes that this difference in treatment is justified because it would remedy an inequality that already exists between opposite-sex and same-sex couples".
That is as may be, but, as my noble friend and the right reverend Prelate have pointed out, it creates new inequalities. I very much hope that if the Bill is enacted, at some stage or another two persons—for example, siblings—will go to the European Court and make a case that it is discriminatory and therefore in certain respects unlawful. It really would serve this Government right if such an action were to be successful.
There is of course more than one way in which the Bill might be corrected. My amendments come later, but they would simply remove the restriction to same-sex couples and open it to couples of any sex. The amendments which my noble friend Lady O'Cathain has tabled are, as one would expect of her, better drafted and perhaps more subtly worded.
However, as the Bill is presently drafted and as Ministers want it, it discriminates against family members who are listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1, and it discriminates by prohibiting the option of civil partnerships to persons of opposite sex. No adequate reason has been given for that. I believe that it is completely wrong. I believe that it is wrong when parents and children are excluded. I find it hard to see that the bonds by which they are united are weaker than those which may band homosexual couples, or indeed other couples of the same sex.
The financial and tax impact of the death of a parent who has been cared for by a son or daughter at the sacrifice of his or her own career and financial well-being is no less than that of the surviving member of a homosexual couple who may have made a similar commitment one to the other, but for perhaps a far shorter period. Daughters are made just as homeless

1369
when inheritance tax demands force the sale of their family home as those who would be members of civil partnerships under the provisions of the Bill.
If I interpreted rightly what the right reverend Prelate said, he alighted upon an aspect which had certainly not occurred to me; that is, the occasion when there is a relationship between a parent and a child who is particularly vulnerable. What happens then? The vulnerable child is left with an inheritance tax Bill which forces the sale of the home in which he or she has lived, and has been cared for by parents, throughout the whole of their natural life. Are these not matters which are of concern to us here and now?
Ministers in Grand Committee half hinted that at some stage there might be legislation which would deal with these acknowledged inequities. But why not now? The only argument which was offered in my hearing in Grand Committee was that it was not appropriate for them to be in the Bill—perhaps because it sprang from the women's equality unit, or whatever it is called. But, surely, we have the opportunity to put right those defects in the Bill and I profoundly hope that we will do so.
These amendments would do no damage whatever to those for whom the Bill was specifically drafted and I do not believe that those who feel that it was drafted for them and their particular lifestyles would feel it right to stand in the way of an amendment which put right another wrong.
Lord Alli: My Lords, we had a lengthy debate on the matter in Grand Committee, even though only a few of us were there. The Bill, although admittedly rather long, is quite simple when one looks at its core purpose. It is to recognise and acknowledge the existence of same-sex couples and to allow them finally and publicly to register their partnerships.
I have great sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, when she talks about siblings who share a home or a carer who looks after a disabled relative. Indeed, she will readily acknowledge that I have put the case several times—at Second Reading and in Grand Committee—and I have pushed the Government very hard to look at this issue. There is an injustice here and it needs to be dealt with, but this is not the Bill in which to do it. This Bill is about same-sex couples whose relationships are completely different from those of siblings.
Perhaps I may remind the House that the Law Commission in its report, Sharing Homes, stated:
"We have concluded that it is not possible to devise a statutory scheme for the determination of shares in a shared home which can operate fairly and evenly across all the diverse circumstances which are now to be encountered".
I fail to see how these amendments can, in a wholly inappropriate Bill, remedy something when the Law Commission could not do so.
The Solicitor Family Law Association states that it,
"opposes extending the scope of the Bill to cover a wider range of family relationships. Having heard cross-party support for the Bill at Second Reading, we are disappointed by the Committee Stage amendments seeking extension of the Bill to other relationships. Civil partnership is not a suitable arrangement for relieving carers
1370
and adult children of the burden of paying inheritance tax. Civil partnership will be more than a financial relationship—it is designed to provide a legal recognition for commuted loving relationships between couples and, as such, it will work well within the family justice system".
Age Concern comments in much the same way, saying that it believes that it is in everyone's interests to allow couples to plan their future without fear of financial destitution. It welcomes the Civil Partnership Bill, as does Relate.
These are complex issues. They need to be considered seriously and not through ill conceived amendments on a different matter. When we put pressure on the Government, asking them to take the issue of carers seriously, my noble friend Lord Filkin said that he would shortly undertake a study on cohabitation and would urge action as soon as he could.
The noble Baroness's argument in Grand Committee was not only that she wanted to help carers but that she wanted to stop gay people having these sets of rights. As I said, I have supported calls for the issue of carers to be looked into. But I have to say to the noble Baroness, as I said to her in Grand Committee, that if an amendment looks like a wrecking amendment, feels like a wrecking amendment and looks as though it will wreck the Bill, she should not be surprised if some of us oppose it.
I hear noble Lords shout "no", but the noble Baroness's principal position, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on homosexuality is clear. They have never voted for legislation which encourages any kind of equalisation of rights for homosexuals. Indeed, on Radio 4 on 27 May 2004, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said about the gay marriage Bill, as he called it:
"We not only have an epidemic of obesity—we have a huge problem with AIDS, and the Government's attitude is to do everything it can to promote buggery, knowing that those two are somewhat intimately connected".
I find it far more difficult to accept these amendments when the Government have already given a commitment to look into these issues—issues which people like me and the noble Baroness care about. If this amendment, which is ill conceived, is agreed to, it will do nothing other than undermine the purpose of the Bill. This is not the Bill to deal with such issues.
I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment and if, after reflection, she cannot do so, I ask noble Lords to vote against it—not because they do not care about carers but because the amendment will undermine the Bill and the Government have already given a commitment in that respect. I say to the noble Baroness that I believe her amendment is a fig leaf to disguise her opposition to the Bill in total, and I hope that she will withdraw it.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I certainly do not have the skill to approach the debate on this Bill with the clarity employed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, but I rise to support wholeheartedly the points that she made.
Again, I am certainly not a master of euphemism and, hence, there are one or two things that I think I must say bluntly to your Lordships. The first is that it

1371
is virtually impossible for anyone to understand a Bill which appears to me to be brought to this House on the back of a demand by a very vocal minority of society and which is so flawed that the Government must come back again and again with page after page of amendments. That strikes me as a very good reason why the Bill should be taken away by the Government and, if it must come back, it should be brought back in a form that many of us can begin to understand. Looking at last month's election results, I wonder how the general public could vote for a party that brings forward a Bill that even Members of your Lordships' House cannot properly understand.
12.45 p.m.
Secondly, to my mind, the Bill undermines the traditional family in two ways: it creates a form of gay marriage and it ignores family relationships in the way that it distributes benefits. I know that it will be denied that the Bill does, in fact, create a form of gay marriage. But I have just listened to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, who said that the problems that have been identified by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, are entirely different from the problems that are being tackled by the Bill. The Bill deals with couples who want to indulge—again, I apologise; euphemism is not a strength of mine—in a relationship which most likely involves unnatural sexual practices. That is the reality of the situation that we are addressing here today.
The amendments at least address the difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Alli, wants to put on the long finger. He is saying, "No, because these people are not indulging in an unnatural sexual practice and because they are brothers, sisters, aunts or grandparents, they should not be included in a Bill which, ostensibly, is to do with benefits and equal treatment for people within society".
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, would add family members to the list of beneficiaries, and they are very straightforward. Doubtless the Government will raise some technical issues against them. Perhaps they will take the Stonewall line and say that they would overcomplicate family law. But we are engaging in a wholesale rewriting of family law. Laws which, for centuries, have guided what we hope to achieve in resolving tax and inheritance difficulties and so on relating to the family are being rewritten wholesale. We are already complicating family law with a Bill which is 400 pages long.
Are homosexuals to be the only beneficiaries? Why must we go through this whole legislative process with our eyes closed to the plight of family members who could benefit and who deserve to benefit? We are talking about a very deserving group of people. The amendments state that they must be close relatives who have lived together for 12 years and they must be over 30 years of age, which means that they have lived together as adults. Living together as minors does not count.
1372
One notable thing that strikes me about the Bill is that there is no residential requirement for homosexual couples to register a civil partnership. Because I do not understand the Bill with the clarity that others do, I ask whether any couple anywhere can form a civil partnership if it is to be financially beneficial. I would guess that that is not the case, but do not understand why it is not if, in fact, there is no such residential requirement for homosexual couples.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, require proof that the relationships that are to be rewarded are long-term, committed relationships. Many people have been able to call to mind an example of the kind of case about which we are concerned. We know about sons who live at home for all their adult life, looking after an ageing parent; we also know of brothers and sisters who have lived together for 30, 40 or 50 years and who, to be blunt, have left it too late to get married. When one says to such people who have lived together in normal, loving, family relationships that they could lose their home to pay inheritance tax, they are shocked. If one were to tell them that there is a Bill before Parliament that could help them, but instead helps only homosexual couples, they would be appalled. I am.
There are many problems with this Bill. I believe that these amendments make a bad Bill less bad and address a genuine injustice. I hope that noble Lords will support them.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, it is not my intention to speak for as long as the previous speaker. I shall move from the somewhat incendiary atmosphere of that speech back to the comparatively tranquil waters of the speeches of my noble friends Lady O'Cathain and Lord Tebbit. Straightaway, I ask my noble friend Lord Tebbit not to condemn the Grand Committee because it was sparsely attended. Surely, it is the quality of the Members who attend a Grand Committee and their dedication that is important.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way and for the implied compliment, as I was one of those who attended. Almost throughout the Grand Committee it seemed odd to me that the number of members of the public exceeded that of the number of Peers present and on occasions the number of advisers exceeded the number of Peers present.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, whatever my noble friend may say and may regret, perhaps I can remind him that there were only 12 Apostles, which is slightly fewer than the number of Peers who attended Grand Committee sittings.
Baroness O'Cathain: No, my Lords, it is more.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, that is the detail, but the principle is the same. In any case, my noble friend Lord Tebbit was, as he kindly informed me, a former Secretary of State for Trade and

1373
Industry—an office that he held with such great distinction and seemingly interminable length—and he will know that St Francois de Sale said that one soul was diocese enough for a bishop. So one member of a Grand Committee dedicated, informed and learned is quite sufficient.
I shall leave that peripheral point and say that I have much sympathy with the point raised by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. Many cases of injustice arise within family relationships. I do not see why the matter should not be dealt with in this Bill. I believe that organisations such as Stonewall, which has written to most Members of this House, do not do a great service to their own cause by resisting the remedying of injustice to the family. It is likely to make the homosexual community more unpopular rather than less.
I know of a case in your Lordships' House, for example, involving siblings. For many years a Peer had lived happily with his brother and sister, but on the death of his brother, he and his sister were obliged to sell the family home, which they did not want to do, and move into other accommodation which was not as satisfactory. This is a problem that should concern us and he seen as such.
While I applaud the intention in the amendment, it seems to me that a half-baked drafted amendment—if one can have such a thing—does not remedy the injustice fully. It adds another injustice. Why should members of a family have to live together for 12 years and be over 30 before they can have such a right? Surely, that is another form of discrimination. Those are provisions that I believe would be much better removed.
On the point made by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain that there would be greater expense for the public purse in certain circumstances, I say so what? If one is remedying injustice, one should not confuse money and morals. They are very different matters. That used to be an argument used against the abolition of capital punishment: it is more expensive to keep people in prison than to execute them. We should abandon that.
Perhaps I can suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, a way out of this dilemma. Would it be possible for her to return with a form of words, different from that proposed in the amendment, with which the Government agree and which they believe would be acceptable to the House? That would be of service both to the general cause that she supports and to human rights and human compassion in general. Let her not fall into the same trap of confusing money and morals, in which my noble friend dipped her toes, because money and morals are totally different. They are not connected, as anyone who knows life in the City will have observed. Yes, I have gone too far. I withdraw that remark. They are not connected, as anyone who has observed certain sections of life in the City will know. I hope that the Minister will take this as a serious suggestion because clearly many people in the House feel deeply about it.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches object strongly to all the amendments in this group.
1374
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that I his is not a gay marriage Bill. We say that it is not a tax relief Bill either. There is a strongly arguable case for some kind of relief from inheritance tax for family members who have been carers to enable them to continue living in the house where they have carried out their caring duties. But that is a different argument and this is not the place or the time for that argument. This Bill is inappropriate for dealing with that issue.
Even the movers of the amendment do not suggest that it should be possible, at the same time, to combine a civil partnership and a marriage. Among other things, that means that tax relief would not extend to a married child caring for a parent, which is a very common situation. The country is, after all, full of grandparents. That would be so even if the child who was caring was separated but not divorced.
1 p.m.
A daughter looking after elderly married parents could not enter into a civil partnership with either of them. She would have to wait until one of them died, by which time the other might not have the mental capacity to enter into one. It would also mean that if one member of a family civil partnership wished to enter into a marriage, he or she could not do so without going to the court to get an order dissolving the civil partnership. A dissolution order must show that the civil partnership has irretrievably broken down. That would not necessarily be the case—a daughter might well want to marry a man who is willing to move in with her and to help care for her parents. That shows that the Bill is wholly unsuitable because it shows up all sorts of unnecessary anomalies.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, could have proposed that a civil partnership within one of her categories could, unlike other civil partnerships, be dissolved whenever one party wishes, which would overcome that particular problem. But to do that would show that her proposal is something entirely different, not only in detail but in its whole nature, from a civil partnership as envisaged in the Bill.
The only people within the noble Baroness list of people eligible to enter into the family civil partnership are those who would not be eligible to enter into the kind of civil partnership proposed in the Bill, because they would be within the prohibited degrees.
I fear that the amendment is being used as a stalking horse for those who are basically opposed to the whole purpose of the Bill. I believe that it would be better if some of those—I am not saying it is true of all of them—who support the Bill were to be more honest about their motives in backing these amendments. We object to the Bill being hijacked for an ulterior purpose that would defeat the objectives for which the Bill was drafted.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, sits down perhaps I may ask him a question. He prefaced his remarks with the words,

1375
"We on these Benches". Does that mean that the Liberal Democrats will not be allowed a free vote on these amendments?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I must make the position of these Benches clear. This is an issue on which there will be a party Whip, but there will be an exemption on the basis of conscience for those Members who do not feel able to support it.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, I support the amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Alli. This is not a wrecking amendment. I think we have passed beyond that.
The House may think that mixed messages come from these Benches. I suppose that from time to time they do. I am glad to be singing in unison with my good friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester today. However, I should like to quote from the submission by the Archbishop's Council to the DTI of September 2003, the tone of which is neither one of antipathy nor of aggression. It stated:
"The hybrid nature of the present proposals is a recipe for confusion".
I have had an episodic engagement with this legislation. I am a new boy in the House. Certainly I, like many others—as has been alluded to—am confused. There is confusion in the general population.
The Archbishop's Council went on to submit:
"We accept that there are issues of social justice which need to be addressed in the light of changing patterns of relationship in our society".
I should also like to quote from a statement made by the Catholic bishops of England and Wales on 23 April. I know that this will gladden the heart of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley. It stated:
"We are strongly committed to upholding the unique status and meaning of marriage and its importance for the well-being of society. Whatever the intention of this proposed legislation there is a real danger that the deeply rooted understanding of marriage as a permanent and exclusive relationship between a woman and a man, and as the best context for raising children will be eroded."
We have tried to stop that erosion. If the Government's laudable aim is to right social injustices, is it not perverse that the considerable investment of time, energy and focus applied to this specific legislation at the same time creates greater injustices?
In the February 2004 session of the General Synod of the Church of England, a Motion was passed that emanated from York, which, among other things:
"strongly affirmed that marriage is central to the stability and health of human society and warrants a unique place in the law of this country",
and:
"recognised there are issues of hardship and vulnerability for people whose relationships are not based on marriage, which need to be addressed by the creation of new legal rights".
That follows the spirit of the amendments in trying to broaden the legislation.
1376
There are situations where family members do not have adequate protection—a matter rehearsed today—in terms of inheritance and property law. The Government should allocate a similar amount of Civil Service time and resources to the issues as has been invested in same-sex couples. Indeed, it could be argued that more people might benefit from such legislation than from the Civil Partnership Bill. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, previously acceded to that point.
It has been argued that for every case the Government can state will benefit from the Civil Partnership Bill almost 60 times as many cases will apply to people in ordinary families.
Some argue that it is perfectly legitimate to debate the defects in inheritance law, landlord and tenant law and so on, but that the proposed Bill remedies those problems only for a select group of people—those who become civil partners under the Bill. In other words, the new legislation is, to my layman's mind, partial, discriminatory and perverse if it stands unamended.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, and I believe also the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, have said that this is not the Bill, not the time and not the place and that other categories will be dealt with in following legislation. In the mean time, I hope these amendments succeed in gaining the support of the House. Is the Minister prepared to give a categorical assurance that the Government will speedily follow up with legislation that benefits other categories of relationship?
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in the debate—and I must apologise to my noble friend for missing the first moment or two of her speech. I do so because of the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Alli and Lord Goodhart.
I warmly supported the Bill at an earlier stage for exactly the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, supported it. I had great sympathy with his prime object in the Bill. I therefore was upset by his contribution and the suggestion that those who support the amendment were supporting a wrecking amendment. He made a great mistake in making that suggestion because I believe that many noble Lords have great sympathy with the part of the Bill which was his object, but who also believe that the case advanced by my noble friend deserves support.
I think I was even more shocked by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I find it strange that the Liberal Democrat Party should think that this is the kind of amendment that deserves a Whip to he imposed on its Members. I shall observe with interest how many members of his party support that Whip. Also, for him to suggest that those who support the amendment are supporting a stalking horse is deeply offensive and quite unworthy. Of course he had a legitimate point to make, a point about the practical difficulties of the amendment. Those arguments could

1377
legitimately have been advanced without casting aspersions on those who take a different view from him. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise simply to point out that I clearly did not say that all those who support the amendment were using it as a stalking horse. I did say—and I stand by this—that in my view, some of them are.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I can only suggest to the noble Lord that he would have done his cause more justice if he had put greater emphasis on the worthiness of the cause advanced by my noble friend before moving on to the technical difficulties.
I have only one other point to make to those who say that the amendment is in the wrong Bill and the wrong place. If one looks back over the whole history of reform down the centuries, one discovers that one needs to pursue reform pretty relentlessly. It is the immediate response of a government who do not want something to say, "Well, at some time in the future, we will look at that and introduce legislation", but it may he many years before we see that legislation. If we really want legislation: if we want a government to move; we must carry an amendment such as this. If the Government then do not think that it can be amended satisfactorily later, they may be forced to come back with some serious proposals for legislation that will cover the point.
So I hope that my noble friends and noble Lords in all parts of the House will not be led astray by that argument, which was the case behind the stalking horse point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I hope that the House will support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, as King Henry VIII said to each of his many wives, this will not take up much of your time. First, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I was interested to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in which he identified that the Bill is clearly a Bill to facilitate same-sex partnerships and that it indeed discriminates against ordinary family members, but said that he thought that that discrimination should continue on the Government's assurance that they will consider it at some time away in the future. It would be wrong to continue with that discrimination against ordinary family members. We should not be making a distinction like that in favour of same-sex relationships and at the same time discriminating against ordinary family members.
I am in the unusual position of being not only a Member of your Lordships' House but still being elected by universal franchise to a constituency in the United Kingdom—namely, Strangford in Northern Ireland—as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which, being suspended, will not have a say in the matter. I recently received a letter from a constituent in Killyleagh in County Down. That lady looked after a handicapped child for 14 years. She then went back to work. She then had to look after her
1378
mother for another 16 years. She then reached pension age and, instead of receiving a pension of £77.45 a week, she was reduced to £61.47 per week because she had failed to apply for attendance allowance while she cared for her handicapped child. She did so at her own time and expense; she applied for no grants or allowances. She was then discriminated against when she reached pension age.
Under the Bill, a person in a same-sex partnership would not be discriminated against. Ordinary people will lose out under the Bill if enacted. More than 90 per cent of the people of the United Kingdom will be discriminated against if the Bill becomes law. I am astounded that the Liberal Democrats, of all people, want to discriminate against 90 per cent of the people of the United Kingdom.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I do not want to delay the House, but I should like to make one brief point that has not been made, which is that committed birth families are not an inert constituency. I am concerned that the Bill as drafted will be seen as the Government once again sidelining those birth families who are dedicated to caring for their children—who are, after all, the nation's children—and to the mutual care of the vulnerable in their family. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester drew attention to the sacrifices that many people in such positions make.
I draw the attention of Members on the Government Front Bench, who, sadly, are not listening, to the fact that there are about 15 or 16 million parents in this country who represent a significant vote. Many of those parents are getting fed up with the Government constantly sidelining them. The Bill could have been drafted—and still could be—to include many of those people. The noble Lord was right to say that the exact wording of the amendments may not be right. Let us put the amendments in place so that the Government can go away and have the opportunity to think again.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I rise briefly to give my total support to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I know that on occasions such as this, when anything relating to sexual matters is debated in this House, Northern Ireland Members who are former MPs but now represent their constituency in another way are put down as being to some extent homophobic. I have heard that said repeatedly. In fact, once when going through the Lobby when voting on a Bill such as this, I heard a Government Whip saying, "Here comes the Pope's brass band".
I do not see it that way. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has made an unanswerable case for including families. The Government repeatedly say that they want to bring about inclusiveness. The reason for the Bill is that they want to include that minority of the population whom they feel have been victims of discrimination. In so doing, they have excluded the vast majority of the normal population in Northern Ireland. As an Opposition Member said, if the Bill is passed as it stands, it will create antagonism against the homosexual community in Northern

1379
Ireland. By the way, I want to put on record that I resent how the homosexual community has hijacked that very good word, "gay". Why not call them homosexuals? Referring to them as gays lets them off a particular hook.
By her amendment, the noble Baroness has brought to the attention of the House the total exclusion of family people. She has received letters; I know of members of my own extended family who would like to be included with the family under the Bill, but they are not and they feel bitterly resentful about that. I can see no reason for excluding families. I do not go along with the line that, this year, next year, sometime or never, the Government will legislate to right that wrong. Now is the time to right that wrong. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and Members on the Liberal Benches, say that those who support the noble Baroness were supporting wrecking amendments. I do not see it that way at all. I do not believe that they are wrecking amendments.
Lord Alli: My Lords, perhaps I may pick up my noble friend on one point. One thing that has been pretty amazing about the Bill is that the word homophobia has not been used at any point. In my recollection, no one during all the days in Grand Committee and all our debates in the House, has said that the noble Baroness, by putting forward a case for carers, was homophobic. What we disagree about essentially is whether this is the place to do it. It is a bad construction, which serves no one well. In my view, it undermines the Bill. Neither I nor anyone else has said that any of the motives behind such amendments are homophobic. I hope that my noble friend will at least accept that reassurance that the House has moved on.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, it is suspected that many people who claim to support this Bill are sotto voce opposed to it. It may not have been said within this House, but it has certainly been said in these corridors and further afield that anyone who is opposed to this Bill has homophobic tendencies.
I do not see where the Government would find any difficulty whatever in including the categories that have been so ably put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I have received hundreds of letters from all over Northern Ireland, many of them from people of a different religion than my own—for example, evangelical Protestants and Presbyterians. They certainly would not support the noble Baroness on other issues, because she has an Irish pronunciation of her name; but on this occasion there is a certain unanimity among all the people from Northern Ireland who have corresponded with me. Many of them do not like this Bill—I do not particularly like this Bill, and I have no hesitation in saying that. I do not put a tooth in it. Many people in Northern Ireland do not like this Bill. Putting aside my own—what some people would refer to as—prejudices, there is a great
1380
injustice and inequality being brought about by this Bill in the way that it totally excludes people in a family.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. I declare an interest as the vice-president of the Princess Royal's Trust for Carers. A good number of those who would be affected by these amendments are carers, who at present relieve the state of heavy responsibilities.
I can claim to have had some part in the development of family justice in this country over some time. Certainly, I would not wish to be a party to disrupting or damaging that general body of law. On the other hand, the situation of members of families who live together in a supportive family relationship over a period of 12 years and more should be recognised and acknowledged by this House. It is said that this is not the Bill in which to do it. I take exception to that, because this is a competent amendment. We know that the resources of five great government departments are behind this Bill, and I do not believe that they would have much difficulty in drafting the necessary amendments to give effect to the thrust of this principal amendment if it is passed. It is not right for us to let an opportunity pass to rectify an injustice in this area. We owe it to the people who give devoted sacrifice as carers in family situations to take this opportunity of a competent amendment to deal with that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Alli, pointed out that the Law Commission had said how difficult it was to deal with the various situations of shared ownership. Of course, I am conscious of that fact. This is a modest amendment in that sense; it does not try to deal with everything. It deals only with a fairly small group, by comparison with the whole, of those who are disadvantaged; namely, those who are have lived together for 12 years and who are over 30 years of age. That will not encompass everyone, but it is a good start. Your Lordships should support these amendments and leave it for later stages of the Bill, if the Government wish, to seek to cater for the detail in a different way to these amendments. The five great departments involved are able to do that.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I know that it is true, as my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell said, that this is a subject about which ferociously mixed messages might come from all sides of the House and indeed from these Benches. I want to make a much smaller point. I hope that in her response the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, will explain why she has narrowed the scope of the amendments compared with those that she proposed in Grand Committee. It is important that she should offer that explanation, because when I heard her move them in Committee—I say that I was there on one occasion simply to show that it was not always the quality that was present—I felt that she had a case. It should be possible to devise a means whereby people could register a caring relationship and receive

1381
some relief. I was not wholly persuaded that this was the Bill in which to do it, but it seemed to me that she had a case.
I find it difficult to accept the notion—and I speak out of a long theological tradition here—that one should have to register in order to have the privileges that come from being a family member. It seems to me that I am a member of the family of which I am a member not from any choice, registration, or covenant, but by virtue of a given relationship that I have. In the amendment as she has now drawn it, there is the confusion of two different objectives; one to support the family, and I wholly support that, and the other to support and honour caring relationships, and I wholly support that. If you are going to do the second, it seems to me that a far wider group of people should he included, as in the initial Committee amendments. If you are going to support the family, it should precisely not be necessary for people to register partnerships in order to achieve the benefits of family membership.
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, listed the other injustices that would arise if you drew the boundaries in the way in which these amendments do. That needs to be taken seriously. I say all this to try to look at this amendment, at this late stage in the Bill, in a detailed and rational way, and not simply to engage in the fundamental debate, which of course goes on all the time under the surface.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, we on these Conservative Benches, Her Majesty's Official Opposition, have a free vote. Let me be clear that I shall support the amendment proposed by my noble friend and I hope that as many Peers as possible from all sides of the House shall do so.
We had an impassioned debate on this subject in Committee. It is a Bill that responds to a demand for justice from couples who cannot marry because they are same-sex couples, but who wish to affirm their commitment to each other on a lifelong basis. I have made clear at every stage that I respect and support that, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Alli, will be able to confirm. I have no doubt that this House will hear the call for justice from those people. The fact that this massive Bill has proceeded so quickly is evidence of that.
However, the call for justice is not, as we have heard, confined to gay couples. Of course it is heart-rending and wrong that the survivor of such a couple should find the roof torn from over their head by inheritance tax after death. That issue was raised with passion and conviction by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others in this House after the tragic death of Lord Montague of Oxford.
1.30 p.m.
I agree with that. But I cannot understand why many of those who support this Bill want to deny the same call for justice—that same right to affirm lifelong love and commitment—to other couples who have lived long together but, like some same-sex gay
1382
couples, cannot marry. I cannot understand that. To my mind, that risks turning this Bill from a Bill that is designed to bring justice and dignity to those who cannot marry to a Bill designed to help a subset of those people who happen to be gay.
It is wrong for gay people, who have suffered for too long from discrimination, to secure for themselves what this Bill gives and to resist it for others, who are equally loving, equally committed and equally debarred from the ability to marry. Why is it right, as it is in my view, for a gay couple to be able to affirm a civil partnership and to secure the privileges and responsibilities that will flow from that in the next finance Bill, and for a sister and a sister who have shared a life together not to be able to do so?
I do not and will not understand that. It grieves me that those who have fought so long and nobly for this Bill turn their backs on the cry for justice from others who are equally deserving. Bluntly, that is what all those who oppose the noble Baroness's amendment will be doing. In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness moved a similar amendment that I supported. But, with the strange Grand Committee procedure, which I think is being greatly overused in this House, there was no opportunity for us to vote.
However, disappointingly, there was opposition from supporters of the Bill, as if the cause of the people that this amendment champions was in opposition to the cause of those that the Bill champions. There is no such conflict—direct or implied. The call for justice represents two sides of the same coin.
I found the attitude of the Liberal Democrats in Committee, as set out by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester of Herne Hill, depressingly flinty hearted. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that we were wasting our time and that we were trying to turn this Bill into a tax avoidance Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said that it was,
"humbug … to point to other disadvantaged groups".—[Official Report, 12/6/04; GC 119.]
Those words deserve to be sent to every family carer in this country as the official view of the Liberal Democrat Party. If the noble Baroness divides the House, I should rather be in her lobby fighting for family carers and for siblings than in that of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester, who articulate the "Bah Humbug" attitude of the Liberal Democrats to those deserving people.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I have not been able to be here for the whole debate, but I have heard everything that she has just said and some of what she said earlier. As she knows, in my Private Member's Bill, which I think was one of the origins of this Bill, I attempted to deal with heterosexual couples as well as homosexual couples.
I was then persuaded by the Government that this was not the right Bill in which to achieve that important reform. But the notion that somehow we are

1383
guilty of double-standards is, frankly, quite ludicrous. I would like the noble Baroness to reflect on what she has just said.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I was there of course. I did hear the proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, made in his Bill. I did hear that he wanted it for heterosexuals and I know that he has spoken to the Government about how this will proceed. But I do not remember him at any time dealing with carers; neither does it alter the fact that I quoted him correctly. In Committee, he said that it was,
"humbug … to point to other disadvantaged groups".—[Official Report, 12/5/04; GC 119.]
One of the few objections to the amendments that were moved at an earlier stage was that they were cast too wide; that, by chance, they could benefit young people in their 20s who had not yet married, but who may, as it were, hedge their bets on tax by registering a partnership with a parent who might then die relatively young.
As my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, has told us, the amendments that she has put forward today are much more narrowly drawn. They cover only people who cannot marry, are over the age of 30—thus excluding the kind of opportunistic case that I have described—and who have lived together for a period of 12 years. Twelve years is a high hurdle: surely, that is proof of a lasting commitment when, sadly, many a marriage nowadays is dissolved far faster than that.
I repeat that these people are debarred from marrying each other just as surely as gay couples. They include the best of our country; namely, sons who have lived for years caring for an aged father, daughters who have done likewise, and unmarried sisters who have shared the same home for, in some cases, 60 or so years. To ask for justice for them is not to wreck the Bill. To recognise what they have given, give and will give is not to wreck the Bill. To confer the right to this status on them does not undermine marriage or the validity of civil partnerships for gay couples.
It is to make a worthwhile Bill an even better Bill. Those who support the Bill and who see it as a great step forward should surely be ready to go one short step further for those family carers and sharers who suffer the same disadvantages and are denied the same privileges and responsibilities as gay couples. Those who want to defend marriage should not see this as undermining in any way the status of marriage. Surely, this is ground on which the advocates of both sides of the argument could come together and proclaim their common humanity.
Frankly, it is a cop-out to say, as some have, "Yes, we agree it is a good case, but it is for another Bill". We have waited a long time for this Bill. The time and the opportunity are now. It may not recur for years. The chance is here—not in another Bill this year, next year, sometime, never—now to do justice to a group of people who are slightly but not so very much wider than those who are covered by the present Bill. To do
1384
so would be in the best traditions of this House, which, in recent times, has shown itself time and again to be a force for decency, fairness and natural justice. If the noble Baroness asks the opinion of this House, I shall support her amendment.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this has been an unusual debate for this House because, perhaps I may say, it has lacked the temperance that I have come to expect. In responding, I hope that I shall be able to answer many of the issues raised by noble Lords. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that there is sympathy and understanding in relation to the difficulties that are faced by carers, by siblings and by others. But, contrary to what has been said, this is not a tax Bill, an inheritance Bill or a sex Bill.
The Bill recognises and acknowledges the reality of same-sex partnerships. It has been described in really quite trenchant terms. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, called it "a nightmare", "a convoluted mess" and "a Bill that discriminates against families". The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, went further. He said that it had been prepared in a "monumentally incompetent manner", that it was a "cruel Bill", "an unfair discriminatory Bill" and a Bill that "created difference in treatment and inequality". Those comments are taken very seriously by the Government. I say to those who made them that I wholeheartedly disagree.
This is not a cruel Bill or a discriminatory Bill. It is a Bill that has been long awaited by those who have sought recognition for their relationships. Of course, I hear what noble Lords opposite say about how long it has taken for this Bill to come to the House. I say gently that of course noble Lords opposite were in power for some 18 years: we heard nothing about the rights, the responsibilities and the inequity with which we now seek to deal.
It is this Government who have sought to address that issue. We seek to address it with fairness, with humanity and with compassion. But we need to be clear because many noble Lords seek to suggest, in effect, that in this Bill we rewrite the whole of the legislation virtually in relation to social security and financial support on which those in our country have come to be reliant. Some £90 billion is expended by the Government on social security and financial support. We need to be clear that in civil partnerships, couples will be mutually responsible for each other. We have talked at length about rights, but we have not, I think, underlined sufficiently the responsibilities.
Those who will enjoy the benefits of a civil partnership will enjoy the rights confirmed as a result of the new creation of that relationship in terms of inheritance provision. But they will also have to accept the responsibilities for social security and financial support. These amendments would require the tearing up of all social security law since Beveridge. No pensioner would get an income-related benefit such as pension credit from the state if their civil partner son could support them. No brother could get an income-related disability benefit if his civil partner sister could

1385
support him. No unemployed adult son could get jobseeker's allowance if his civil partner mother could support him, and no son could fail to pay child support if his mother could meet the Bill. I could go on.
All such benefits would belong not to the individual but to the relationship, which in social security terms would put the clock back to the 1930s. I know that that is not the intention of the noble Baroness. So that is in part why we say, "not this Bill".
The noble Baroness has voiced many issues in relation to those who care. But we must also recognise that these provisions would apply to all families and all estates. The reality of that is that the greatest estates in this country could be passed from father to son or son to sister without there ever being payment of inheritance tax. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has made it very clear that she would like to see the abolition of all inheritance tax so that no estate would ever be burdened with it. I understand that position and I understand, in tabling these amendments, that that is what she desires. But I say to her, "not in this Bill". It would mark a serious departure from the way in which this country has traditionally looked at inheritance tax and capital gains. This is not a tax Bill.
I hope that I have made it clear that in no way do I wish to denigrate the important relationships that some people have with family members with whom they share a home. Family relationships are of course valuable and society recognises them as such. Parents, children, siblings, aunts, grandparents and nephews all have relationships with each other that are already legally recognised. In Grand Committee I mentioned some of the rights that family members already enjoy such as, for example, recognition in intestacy laws, tenancy succession rights and a general acceptance of the right to visit relatives or attend their funerals.
While there has been discussion of needs and rights, as I said earlier, not enough has been said about the financial responsibilities that are explicit in the Bill. I cite again the example I mentioned earlier of the duty to maintain a civil partner and any child of the family. Moreover, I respectfully point out that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester was right to remind us that family relationships are not usually those of choice, but ones which come about as a result of birth. They can be either a joyous advantage or a somewhat dubious burden, but they are incapable of being thrown off.
A very different relationship, and one to which we seek to give acknowledgement, is a relationship of choice between two adults who wish to commit their lives together.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I think that she may be inadvertently confusing the House a little. Would she confirm that this Bill of itself contains no provisions whatever about tax? In whatever form it is enacted, it will be for the Government and the Treasury to decide what they should do about tax. If the amendments tabled by my
1386
noble friend were accepted, they could decide not to extend the rights of married couples regarding inheritance tax to anyone else. It is up to them how far they go, not up to my noble friend.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not accept that as right because we have been absolutely clear about the basis on which we have brought these provisions before this House. We have outlined the consequences which we reasonably expect will flow from the formation and registration of such relationships, and it is on that basis that we have had our debate.
I have accepted the statements made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that she too seeks to have those issues addressed. She seeks exemption from inheritance tax for those for whom she is pursuing this advantage and, indeed, she would advocate the abolition of all inheritance tax. That is the true basis on which this House is debating these issues.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am very sorry to do this because I do not want to delay the House any longer. However, at this point I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, that I am very upset at the way she keeps on saying that I am advocating the abolition of inheritance tax. I certainly do not like inheritance tax, but in no way is this a wrecking amendment and in no way is it an amendment to abolition inheritance tax. This amendment seeks solely to right injustice.
I have said time and again that the Government are righting injustice in this Bill—to same-sex couples. I have not mentioned the words "homosexual" or "homophobia" at all; I refer to same-sex couples. By creating the right to right that injustice, the Government are causing another major injustice. That is it, full square. My amendments say nothing else. I really do not want to be told two or three times that this is a move solely to abolish inheritance tax. I do not like the tax, but there are lots of things that I do not like. However, I am not bringing them into this Bill, and that is a fact.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I hear what the noble Baroness says and I do not seek to suggest that she is doing anything that she is not entitled to do. But in relation to each of the groups to which she has referred, the consequence would be that they would not be subject to inheritance tax by virtue of their being excluded.
The amendments would allow people in specified family relationships to register as civil partners of each other once they have shared a home for a minimum of 12 years. Since Grand Committee the period of years of continuous home sharing has increased from seven years to 12 years, and it may prove to be very difficult to verify that such a requirement had been met.
But what about a family of three sisters, or two spinster sisters who are joined by their widowed sister? I cannot see how these amendments would help them, and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, setting out the differences in relation to those relationships were sound. The noble Baroness has said

1387
that this Bill is highly discriminatory, but how would three sisters living together choose which two of them would form a civil partnership?
I have not heard a great deal about the need for the relatives who come within the noble Baroness's additional categories of civil partnerships to be given special legal recognition for their relationship together as a couple. But this is an important part of what civil partnership offers to the same-sex couples for whom it is designed. Yet we have heard much debate on the financial implications of the Bill, and in particular on their need for exemptions. I am under no illusion about the consequences that would flow. We have already discussed at length our concerns in this regard. The amendment could lead to a sequence of family members forming civil partnerships with other family members in order to continue the situation.
As I said in Grand Committee, the Law Commission's report on home sharers in 2002 concluded that no single solution was possible for all the different permutations of home sharers. My noble friend Lord Alli was quite right to allude to this because it is a difficult and problematic issue. The needs of closely related family members who live together are very different from those of same-sex couples, who lack legal recognition of their relationship together as a couple because they cannot marry.
I recognise the concerns about what some have suggested is the devaluing of marriage and that there is not a significant difference. We have made it clear again and again that we see a very significant difference between the consequences, import and nature of marriage and the civil partnerships that we are now contemplating.
The argument could be made that this kind of arrangement makes the prospect of marriage more difficult for people. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, set out the difficulties involved in ending a partnership when a sibling or another person wishes to enter into a marriage. If a mother and daughter entered into a civil partnership, the daughter caring for her mother would have to go through a court-based dissolution procedure in order to marry.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, said in relation to bringing forward a different amendment to cure the flaws inherent in the amendment of the noble Baroness. However, we do not believe it would be possible to do that within the Bill. I have looked at the detail of what is proposed. I am unconvinced not only of the practicalities of these proposals, even as revised since Grand Committee; but, also, I am firmly unconvinced that the Bill is the right place for them.
I find it highly unlikely that noble Lords would wish to open marriage to people in close family relationships—I am dealing of course with the issue in terms of heterosexual couples—and, in the same way, it is not appropriate to make civil partnerships available to them either. We believe that opening up such a formal legal relationship to family members
1388
could lead to questions about the nature of the family unit, blurring the integrity of laws prohibiting sexual relationships within the family.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I apologise that I had to be somewhere else earlier today.
I was surprised to hear the noble Baroness mention marriage. It seems to me that, throughout the passage of the Bill so far, the Government have taken pains to say that the proposed civil partnership is not an analogy with marriage. It has nothing in it about permanence nor about exclusivity and so, on both grounds, it seems to me that the Government are right to say that.
However, it is curious that all this is being done in respect of a partnership which is quite specifically undefined. It seems to me that the last thing it can be right for the Minister to do is to draw parallels with marriage at this stage.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, let me deal with the two issues raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester in relation to permanence and exclusivity.
It is clear from the very nature of the relationships recognised in the Bill that the provisions relate to long-term partnerships. The dissolution provisions, the nullity provisions, and so on, make it clear that we are dealing with long-term relationships. As to exclusivity, it is clear from the provisions that a person can enter into only one civil partnership at any given time. He or she is not entitled to have more than one relationship while in the civil partnership. So, in relation to permanence and exclusivity, I disagree with the right reverend Prelate.
If the civil partnership is to be available to those within the bounds of consanguinity, the whole nature of the family and the family relationship will change significantly. The rights and responsibilities which are given to a civil partner are very different indeed from the rights and responsibilities which would be given to a family member. It is in that sense that I made my comments about the way in which these matters are put together.
A civil partnership is not a financial deal or a matter of tax avoidance; it is a new legal relationship which gives legal recognition to same-sex couples who have found the person they wish to share their lives with, separate from any family ties. It is the purpose of the Bill to give that legal recognition to same-sex couples in their life together as a couple. That is a fundamental part and purpose of the Bill before us.
It is a partnership that cannot be described as a commercial contract or simply an arrangement of convenience. Those who enter into these partnerships will have to take the rights and responsibilities extremely seriously because they are quite onerous. I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this very good debate. I have no intention of spending any more time on it. I shall write

1389
to all noble Lords who have made comments and asked me questions after I have read Hansard. beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
1.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 148; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Ampthill. L.

Jopling, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Kalms, L.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Arran, E.

Kimball, L.

Astor, V.

Kingsland, L.

Attlee, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Bagri, L.

Laird, L.

Bell, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Biffen, L.

Listowel, E.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, Bp.

Brennan, L.

Liverpool, E.

Bridges, L.

Lucas, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Luke, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Burnham, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Byford, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mancroft, L.

Chadlington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cobbold, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Colwyn, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Coventry, Bp.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Cox, B.

Monson, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Montrose, D.

Crickhowell, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Moran, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dearing, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L.

Northbourne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northbrook, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

O'Cathain, B. [Teller]

Eden of Winton, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Elles, B.[Teller]

Palumbo, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L.

Parkinson, L.

Erroll, E.

Patten, L.

Feldman, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fitt, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fookes, B.

Peterborough, Bp.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Freyberg, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Plumb, L.

Geddes, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Quinton, L.

Goschen, V.

Quirk, L.

Greenway, L.

Rawlings, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Rees, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Rix, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Home, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hooson, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Seccombe, B.

1390

Selborne, E.

Tebbit, L.

Selsdon, L.

Tenby, V.

Sharples, B.

Tombs, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Waddington, L.

Slim, V.

Wakeham, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Walpole, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Warnock, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Wilcox, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Stokes, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Strange, B.

Windlesham, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wolfson, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Addington, L.

Hollis of Heigham. B.

Alii, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council

Hoyle, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Joffe, L.

Avebury, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bach, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Barker, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lipsey, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Berkeley, L.

McCluskey, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bhattacharyya, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Blood, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Borrie, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Marsh, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Christopher, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mitchell, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morgan, L.

Crawley, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Moser, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Newby, L.

David, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Northover, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Drayson, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Dubs, L.

Pendry, L.

Elder, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Ezra, L.

Rea, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Redesdale, L.

Richard, L.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rooker, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Roper, L.

Gale, B.

Russell, E.

Gavron, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gilbert, L.

Sharman, L.

Golding, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Goodhart, L.

Sheldon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Simon, V.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harrison, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Haskel, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hayman, B.

Thornton, B.

Henig, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Triesman, L.

1391

Truscott, L.

Whitaker, B.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Whitty, L.

Turnberg, L.

Wilkins, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Wall of New Barnet, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Walmsley, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Warner, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 3.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Veterinary Practices
2.7 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they see the future of rural veterinary practices in the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the importance of the subject of this debate is reinforced by the quality and expertise of those noble Lords who have so kindly agreed to speak. I am most grateful.
The head of a Sussex veterinary practice recently wrote to a farming friend of mine, as follows:
"The dramatic downturn in farming has resulted in a loss of 75 per cent of farms clients to the practice in the last ten years. The most difficult consequence for me"—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness talking to me?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, if the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will forgive me, I wish that noble Lords leaving the Chamber could have conversations outside, as it is quite difficult to hear the noble Baroness.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope that that interruption does not count as part of my 10 minutes. I shall start the letter again:
"The dramatic downturn in farming has resulted in a loss of 75 per cent of farms clients to the practice in the last ten years. The most difficult consequence for me has been that my colleagues have no exposure to large animals and consequently do not feel confident in dealing with them. This means that unless I am prepared to always be on duty, we are not providing a proper 24 hour service. As a result, it has been decided that the practice will cease to do farm work".
That letter just about sums up the present deteriorating situation.
Your Lordships will remember that not so very long ago we debated the plight of rural pharmacies. I make no apologies about returning to my roots, since I share the view, espoused recently by the director of the
1392
Scottish Crop Research Institute, John R. Hillman, that agriculture is relatively more important than most other human activities. It is, as he said, the basis of sustenance and civilisation. But nowadays, in terms of the perception of too many of those who live in our towns and cities, and of the body politic, it seems less important than entertainment, celebrity, sport, recreation or just about any other activity.
In recent years, the agricultural industry has suffered its greatest series of tragedies for over half a century at least. The veterinary profession, too—at this point I should declare an interest as an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association—and particularly those in rural veterinary practice, also feel that their backs are up against the proverbial wall.
Since the viability of farm veterinary practice is directly related to the viability of the agricultural livestock sector that it serves and the level of public support for services provided in the public good, concerns as to its future are not new. Vets have regularly in recent years pointed out that farm animal practice is becoming increasingly uneconomic and unfortunately the situation continues to deteriorate.
The recent development of the animal health and welfare and disease surveillance strategy documents seems to indicate that the Government recognise that biosecurity and vets on farms are fundamental to ensuring that crises such as those experienced with BSE and foot and mouth disease do not occur again. Nevertheless, the veterinary profession continues to navigate uncharted waters with regard to the future of farm animal veterinary work—an important topic in a country in which livestock farming, I dare to hope, still matters. However, as a recent editorial in the Veterinary Record pointed out, there is little point in developing an animal health and welfare strategy if, by the time it is finalised, the infrastructure needed to apply it is no longer there.
The inquiry report published last October concluded that, although there were sufficient vets in total, there were concerns about whether there were enough large animal practitioners. At a time when the Government's animal health and welfare strategy appeared to require a greater on-farm presence of vets, the economics of farming was leading to less use and further reducing the attractiveness of large animal practice. The report outlined difficulties in obtaining veterinary services in some parts of the country, the declining interest in large animal work among new graduates and the exodus of experienced large animal practitioners. The letter that I quoted from when I began bears out those statements.
The report further pointed out that Defra needed to be aware of the impact that its strategies and changes to European food safety rules would have on current and future demand for vets, and expressed concern that the Competition Commission's recommendations on the supply of prescription-only medicines could lead to a reduction in the number of practices providing large animal veterinary services, which could affect Defra's ability to meet its objectives. It recommended that Defra should urgently assess the

1393
implications of the Competition Commission's recommendations and report the results in time for them to he taken into account when the animal health and welfare strategy was finalised. Have the Government undertaken this economic impact assessment and what was the result? If it has not yet been undertaken, why not?
The Government are on record as stating that vets will have a key role to play in implementing their strategies on veterinary surveillance and animal health and welfare. Given the importance of that role, the fact that they have delayed their response to EFRACOM is clearly worrying vets, not least since it indicates to them a lack of urgency in the Government's approach, which hardly engenders confidence.
The delay in the Government's response to the EFRACOM report has been made all the more frustrating because it has intensified the problems highlighted. With every passing day, veterinary practices throughout the UK are making strategic business decisions to withdraw farm services due to insufficient levels of farm work remaining to justify specific overheads. That results in the surviving farm animal practices travelling much further to service farms. Not only does that have severe animal health and welfare implications, since, in an emergency, the vet is no longer 10 to 15 minutes away but an hour or more, but it also has an economic effect because there are increased costs of attendance to the farmer. Despite the Defra consultant's views, that is not welcome news to farmers.
The EFRACOM report also called for Defra to conduct a risk analysis of the consequences of not having enough large animal vets in the country against the background of the cost to the taxpayer of not being able to deal adequately with either the threat or an outbreak of a serious animal disease. It does not take a genius to realise that decreased veterinary attendance on farms results in fewer opportunities to collect surveillance data. After all, BSE was first reported due to the clinical expertise of practising vets present on farms. So I must ask whether the risk analysis has been carried out or whether it is in hand. If not, then again I must ask, why not? Cost is clearly an issue for the Government, but they need to weigh the cost implications of their strategies against the cost to the nation if disease control fails. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
2.17 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for enabling us to have this short debate on a very important subject. I declare an interest as an honorary associate member of the British Veterinary Association. As the noble Baroness said, farmers, the veterinary profession and the Government face a serious situation which could produce serious problems involving both animal and public health if action is not taken.
In the four years between 1998 and 2002, the time spent by rural vets on farm animals halved for cattle and more than halved for sheep and pigs. That reflects
1394
the fact that the number of full-time vets working with farm animals dropped by 29 per cent. A number of factors are involved and the noble Baroness referred to some of them. The main one is falling farm profits. If money is short, the vet is not called out. If the values of animals are falling, is it worth calling the vet out? At the same time, we know that legislation requires the attendance of the veterinary profession for TB and brucella testing for export certification and so forth. The vets on a farm are the first to pick up the presence of disease. The noble Baroness mentioned the example of BSE. It is obvious that the proposed animal health and welfare strategy and the veterinary surveillance strategy will require more vets on the farm if the strategies are to work at all. If the State Veterinary Service is to be effective it needs sufficient skilled, experienced, local veterinary inspectors—or vets on the ground. If, God forbid, there were another outbreak of foot and mouth disease, have the Government calculated how many vets would be required compared with the present number of vets, or would we have to import vets as we did last time?
The noble Baroness also referred to a further issue that is compounding the problem—the possible loss of cross-subsidisation of the cost of farm visits if the rules on prescription-only and veterinary medicines are changed. Where are we on that matter? Sixty-three per cent of practice income in large animal practices is derived from the sale of veterinary medicines. Have the Government calculated the effect on practice incomes if prescription-only drugs are declassified? What is the Government response to the report by the Competition Commission?
We know that farmers are having to face up to cross-compliance and all that that entails. To take an example, what would be the effect on the demand for veterinary manpower on the ground if farm assurance standards form part of cross-compliance, as they are intended to do and those standards require regular inspections by the farm vet? At the moment, I believe that the inspections are quarterly for the assurance standard for pigs and six monthly in other cases. If all farms are required to meet farm assurance standards as a part of cross-compliance and those standards require the input of vets, do we have enough of them?
I conclude with a brief mention of NADIS—the National Animal Disease Information Service—which started eight years ago and has grown to 40 veterinary practices, known as sentinel practices, plus the six UK veterinary colleges, throughout the UK. The vets involved record every day all the diseases that they encounter on their farm visits. That information is loaded on to a central database and collated every fortnight. As a result, reports can be provided on a regional or national basis for any given period over the past eight years.
The NADIS target is to increase the number of sentinel practices to 120—to treble them; to enable reporting vets to be paid at LVI rates, and not the very small fee that they are paid at the moment; and to strengthen case definition in the sample and the quality assurance of the scheme. I believe that Defra has been asked for assistance in the expansion of the scheme.

1395
Will my noble friend the Minister say whether help will be forthcoming for that extremely important service? It would provide an excellent means of early warning if diseases developed; if vets all around the country reported a particular disease that had not been seen recently on a farm, something would obviously be happening, and the information could be obtained very quickly.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, farmers, veterinary surgeons and the Government are facing a very serious situation. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give us some good news on the matter in his reply.
2.22 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, this House should be grateful to my noble friend for initiating this debate, which is appropriate to the animal health situation in the country.
I shall not linger on the devastating catastrophes that have beset the livestock industry, many of which we are still recovering from. Those pandemics have changed the face of farming, with many livestock farmers going out of business, or contemplating doing so, or moving to arable farming, and with farmers' sons and daughters being increasingly unwilling to follow their father's footsteps. That has been particularly so in marginal land where life consists of long hours, hard work and poor rewards—where that is the order of the day. That has a direct effect on the veterinary profession, exacerbating an already existing decline in veterinarians' numbers in rural practices.
The progressive decline in farm livestock makes it increasingly difficult to provide veterinary services—although some veterinarians continue to do so, even though it is uneconomical. One should remember that the veterinary practice is a private endeavour, and possibly only 10 to 12 per cent of veterinary manpower is devoted to large animal rural practice. That is in stark contrast to the situation of some 50 years ago, when I was in veterinary practice—I declare an interest in that respect. Then virtually all veterinary work was with farm animals, and the only dogs that we treated were sheepdogs.
In addition to treatment of sick livestock and the provision of preventive measures such as vaccination, local veterinary practices were the eyes and ears of the disease situation in local areas. It was the vets who spotted deviations from the normal health situation, reported them and set action in progress to deal with them. Consider the situation now, when many livestock endeavours never see a veterinary surgeon from one year's end to another. Of the 7,000 veterinary practices, some 900 offer cattle work and only 350 of those regularly use the diagnostic services of the veterinary laboratory agencies.
The situation is very depressing. It means that the surveillance of disease and welfare in the rural farming areas is seriously affected, and serious pathogens, such as West Nile virus, Salmonella Newport, and others including foot and mouth, which we have had recently, may not be spotted because a veterinarian is not there.
1396
Details of the situation have been collected and analysed by a number of bodies. To my mind, one of the most effective investigations was that in the House of Commons report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on vets and veterinary services in 2003. There have been others that I shall not mention because of time. What solutions do those various reports propose to safeguard the health and welfare of livestock?
First and foremost, there is the urgent need to get vets back on to livestock farms in a meaningful way. Contrary to some reports, I do not believe that there is a major disinclination of young vets to go into rural practices. Many young graduates would wish to do so, but there are simply not the jobs available to them. Similarly, the feminisation of the veterinary profession is often stated to be responsible for the decline in large animal veterinary services. I do not concur with that, as, from my experience as dean of the Cambridge Veterinary School, many female graduates would wish to go into large animal practice. Again, however, there are not the jobs available to them.
Not all is doom and gloom, however. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, there is a private enterprise known as NADIS, in which veterinary practices are doing surveillance on their own. They are doing an excellent job, and I hope that Defra can help them out in their needs and that the Minister will respond positively to that suggestion.
I understand that the department is about to publish an animal health and welfare strategy, maybe even today. No doubt the Minister will comment on that. It may contain implications that all animal keepers should be vigilant, with good biosecurity measures to maintain high standards of animal health, and have a legal obligation to employ private veterinarians to meet their responsibilities. The Royal Society, in its report on "infectious diseases of livestock", recommended that all keepers of livestock should submit the name of their nominated veterinary surgeon and a health plan approved by that veterinary surgeon.
Those developments, along with the action that is being taken on the report by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on teaching and research in veterinary schools, promises that we shall have an effective service in future. I hope that those various measures will go far in providing answers on a partnership basis to the problems that have been identified in this very short debate.
2.28 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I start by declaring that I am an honorary associate of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association. I thank my noble friend Lady Trumpington, as others have, for allowing us this brief opportunity to discuss the problems facing rural veterinary practices.
My noble friend Lord Soulsby referred to a number of reports, including that of the Royal Society. That report, on infectious diseases and livestock, was one of several reports commissioned after the foot and mouth outbreak. The animal health and welfare strategy

1397
being announced today will in part respond to some of the proposals made from a scientific standpoint on how the United Kingdom might prevent and combat further invasions of highly infectious livestock diseases.
The report, prepared under the chairmanship of Sir Brian Follett, gave some very important advice on how, at the working level, farmers and veterinarians need to be more aware of the risks and more familiar with the symptoms of rarely encountered diseases. It notes that effective surveillance depends on close collaboration between farmers and their veterinarians and between them and the State Veterinary Service—now, I understand, to become a Next Steps agency. It suggests that farm animal disease surveillance needs to be strengthened. Defra has sponsored a new veterinary service strategy.
A major issue is our poor understanding of how highly infectious diseases are spread locally. This is something to which the rural veterinary practitioner can make a great contribution on the research side. The Royal Society report argued that a targeted research initiative, with the clear aim of improving standards of biosecurity at the farm level, should be put in place.
It must be accepted that heightened animal disease surveillance on farms can he achieved only through effective interaction between vets and farmers. It is the vet who is the first to pick up an observation, perhaps a casual remark from the farmer about an animal that is behaving in an unexpected way or about something that is a little unusual. It is that insight that sometimes can be shared with other vets in the field. It is that which sometimes gives us the opportunity to spot a new infection, perhaps even a new infectious epidemic, such as BSE or foot and mouth.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Soulsby referred to the National Animal Disease Information Service, which I visited a week or so ago at Newbury. It is an excellent example in the spirit of the Royal Society report. As we have heard, 40 veterinarians, together with the six veterinary colleges, have hands-on sharing of information, which is pushed out to rural veterinary practices through monthly communications. Every time each of the 40 vets goes on a farm he records what he comes across and gives information that can be entered into a central databank. So I join the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Soulsby in saying that this seems to he an extremely appropriate hands-on initiative, sponsored by two commercial companies, dairy farmers, through the Milk Development Council, and the MLC. There is room for more sponsorship and perhaps the Next Steps agency, or Defra, might consider whether it should join in sponsoring it. It would be good value for money.
I am not entirely clear about how Defra sees the National Animal Disease Information Service fitting into the wider national surveillance strategy. It would be very helpful to hear how the Minister sees the role of NADIS.
2.32 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I join with noble friends, all noble friends I think, in congratulating my noble friend Lady Trumpington on raising this question. It is very timely. Indeed, it is overdue. It is extremely important, for many of the reasons that have already been given.
We should remind ourselves that the Government have stated, and are on record to have said, that vets have a key role to play in implementing their strategies on veterinary surveillance, animal health and welfare. As we recognise, between livestock farmers and the veterinary profession this country has a very proud record of achievement. I speak from experience as a farmer, a member of the BVA and an honorary associate of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The profession has led us from science to practice through the ages.
But the days of the life of James Herriot as seen on television are over. It is time to move forward on all matters of animal health in today's circumstances. Of course, we recognise that change is the law of life. Recent events, emanating from the various crises that have already been referred to—foot and mouth and BSE, the on-going problem of TB and the reform of the CAP—have accelerated the speed of change. As we have already heard—the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made particular reference to it—the availability of vets and veterinary services is extremely worrying. The conclusion of the Commons committee report of last October, which we have all read and referred to, highlights those concerns, which are due partly to the structural change that is taking place in farming but mainly to the economic climate of British agriculture.
I hope that the Minister can tell us very clearly why there has been so much delay when the Government know full well that animal welfare and welfare strategy require a greater on-farm presence of veterinary surgeons. The State Veterinary Service and private practice have always worked extremely well together—I have experience of it—particularly in times of crisis. But if, for example, we had another foot and mouth outbreak—which is always possible due to lax import regulations—does the Minister believe that the profession could cope, particularly if we were to start a scheme of vaccination?
In today's world, no one can expect to persuade veterinarians to concentrate on farm animals alone when there is a large demand for service, particularly for domestic pets. Consultation documents and working groups do not provide solutions. Action is needed. Surely, encouragement through training, to make veterinary careers in farm animal practice more attractive, is necessary and the delay in answering Select Committees only adds to frustration. Does the Minister agree that perhaps the time has come to review a scheme in which I was very much involved many years ago? Believing that prevention is better than cure, it required a visit from veterinarians, a sort of Denplan, to advise the stock farmer on matters of health and welfare. It would, of course, be voluntary but it needs government support.

1399
Finally, in her opening remarks my noble friend Lady Trumpington referred to the perilous state of agriculture in recent years and posed one of the most important issues for the veterinary profession, the concern regarding the supply of prescription-only medicines following the competition commission inquiry. It would boost the morale of the profession if the Minister would acknowledge the serious consequences to the health and welfare of animals and would satisfy veterinarians by making a full economic impact assessment, recognising the responsibility that they take when diagnosing, prescribing and dispensing veterinary medicines.
We know that veterinary work is a 24-hour service. The present situation is totally unsustainable in economic terms and is exacerbated by many of the regulations, not least the Working Time Regulations, which make life even more difficult for veterinarians and all concerned in the business of veterinary work.
2.38 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as an associate of the British Veterinary Association. I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for introducing this very important debate this afternoon.
Last summer, I made a train journey through Texas for the first time and I was appalled to see dead cattle lying by the side of the track. I had never seen that before but, the way we are going in this country as far as the numbers of vets are concerned, we might possibly get to the situation of seeing it here in my lifetime. I do not think EU regulations would allow it. I must say that I was appalled at what I saw.
I have worked closely with vets all through my life on farms and also in colleges and I have a fairly acute understanding of the difficulties they have in operating. What appals me at the moment is that quite a number of private veterinary practices are closing down. That seems to be an extraordinary state of affairs. In the 1980s, I was driven to distraction when serious proposals were put forward to close the University of Glasgow Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and the University of Cambridge Veterinary School. Fortunately, both were saved by a massive campaign. Many veterinary practices do not think it profitable to treat large animals. As noble Lords said, because of cost, many farmers are doing their own veterinary work.
Inadequate numbers of young men are going into veterinary practice; indeed, girls now comprise some 73 per cent of UK students going to veterinary schools. There is nothing wrong with that—there are many able young girl veterinarians—but the large animal practices are consequently often understaffed. Another extraordinary statistic is that 50 per cent of students at UK veterinary schools—which have very high entry standards—are from overseas. Some EU countries have more veterinary schools than we do. Every Spanish region, for example, has a veterinary school.
1400
Especially in the light of the pandemics that noble Lords mentioned, the current career structure and rundown of the State Veterinary Service—attempts are being made to put it right, but the number of state vets has halved—is a very serious matter. The number of state vets has decreased from about 620 to 310, although I gather more are coming on board.
Rural veterinary practices should have a number of aims. They need to have able, qualified and younger vets who are prepared to turn their hand to anything. The practices need to be financially viable and have vets with all-round ability in treating both large and small animals. Veterinary practices are a crucial part of the rural infrastructure. They are vital to animal health.
The next time we have a foot and mouth outbreak, there may not be enough retired vets around to help out with their knowledge and experience in snuffing out these terrible diseases. Like the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, I believe animal health should be monitored continuously. As he said, all livestock farmers could strike contracts with vets. The farmers could then have an annual programme of affordable animal testing and health checks. Not only would that benefit farm animals; as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said, it would ensure proper monitoring of disease spread. It could be picked up in the early stages and serve as an early-warning system.
The incidence of vets' visits to cattle has decreased from 14 per cent in 1998 to 7.5 per cent in 2002. The incidence of visits to sheep has decreased from 4 per cent to 1.3 per cent. The British Veterinary Association has identified a number of critical factors in the decreasing use of vets to treat large farm animals. First, the animals' value has decreased. Secondly, in some cases, animal numbers have decreased. Thirdly, farming profitability has decreased. The combination has led to a situation in which it costs more to ring up the local vet, who often has to travel the distances that noble Lords have mentioned, than the animal is worth. It is a very serious situation.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will have good news for us, especially in relation to the EFRACOM report.
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for securing this debate on the future of rural vets and congratulate her on her timing. I believe that the strategy is being launched at Nobel House at this very moment. I hope that many of the issues raised in this debate are recognised in the strategy. Without a sufficient supply of qualified and experienced vets across the country, I fear that animal disease could again threaten rural livelihoods.
Like other noble Lords I should declare an interest as an honorary associate member of the BVA—there are not many of us not declaring that interest this afternoon—and also remind the House of our family farming interest, although we are now without livestock.

1401
As other noble Lords said, the number of vets working with large animals is declining. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons manpower survey of 2002 found that the number of full-time vets working with farm animals had decreased by 29 per cent between 1998 and 2002. I think I am the third speaker to refer to those figures. I hope that that underlines our concern.
My noble friend Lord Soulsby reflected on the fact that so many farms have not been making money and that that is one of the good reasons why vets are not called out unless it really is an emergency. Will the Minister confirm that, in the past year, there has been a reduction in the number of State Veterinary Service vets as well?
Like other noble Lords, I understand that 80 per cent of vets in training are women. That is good news. Consequently, however, the profession has a problem. It will have to cope with career breaks, a possibly lower investment capability and a further decline in the number of those going into large animal practices.
As many vets leave university with debts of between £20,000 and £30,000, they are naturally attracted to work in urban areas where they work mainly in small animal practices. They question the wisdom of working and investing in rural practices when the future of livestock farming is so uncertain. Have the Government considered the possibility of paying a proportion of those university fees in return for a commitment to work in a rural practice for a few years when they qualify? Have they considered, for example, giving rate relief to veterinary practices based in rural areas?
My noble friend Lord Soulsby talked about the lack of opportunity for newly qualified vets to gain experience working with large farm animals. I hope that some of my suggestions might help in that regard. My noble friend Lord Selborne referred to the work of the Royal Society which clearly highlighted the risks and symptoms of disease and the need to share information on a central database.
On 11 April the Competition Commission produced an 800-page report on the possible monopoly in the supply of prescription-only veterinary medicines. The OFT picked that up and went out to consultation. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons met the 16 May 2003 deadline. The OFT reported to the DTI, since when, despite repeated calls, there has been no outcome. Does the Minister accept that that is totally unacceptable and a total shambles?
Has the Minister received the BVA's recent survey showing that 63 per cent of the income of large family practices is derived from veterinary medicines, compared with only 38 per cent for small ones? The profession has a tradition of cross subsidy. Ending that practice will mean a spiral of increased veterinary fees, fewer farm visits, lower vet incomes and further falls in vet numbers and a consequent worsening of animal health standards. What is the Government's response to this dilemma?
1402
The situation will be even more serious if the decrease in large farm numbers and the increase in the number of hobby holdings continue. Will the Minister comment on that? Furthermore, smaller holdings are without the traditional support of large family practices. It is not really reasonable to expect farmers to pay the sorts of prices that may result if service provision is severed from the supply of medicine. Even without that separation, in 2003, the State Veterinary Service found that 1,341 out of 4,964 farms failed to meet the statutory standards. So we recognise that there is work to do.
Finally, I refer to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Trumpington: who will pay for this new strategy to get more vets on to farms? How will that happen if vets have to compete with supermarkets in the dispensing of medicines that the former have traditionally carried out?
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the very important issue of cross compliance and the linking of that to more farm visits. But who would pay for that? It is certainly not clear.
How does the Minister reconcile the situation highlighted by noble Lords with the statement in the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy that the veterinary profession, the stakeholders and the Government are working to ensure that vets are equipped to play a full and fundamental role in disease control and prevention? We await answers to that question.
2.51 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for initiating this debate. It is clearly an important issue in terms of the support that the farming industry receives from the veterinary service and in terms of the quality and welfare of our farm animals.
Concerns have been expressed in this House and by members of the professions and, indeed, by the agriculture sector itself. I shall begin by attempting to remove a couple of partial misconceptions. Of course it is true that there has been a decline in the number of farms. That will doubtless continue. There has been much less of a decline in the number of farm animals due to mergers of flocks and herds. Although that may continue, it is not anywhere near as drastic as is sometimes claimed in terms of the restriction of demand on the veterinary service.
As we are all aware, farming has gone through a very difficult time economically. Certainly, three years ago when I was appointed to this post, farming was at its absolute nadir. There has been a significant recovery in farm incomes in most although not all sectors. The demand on farm vets reflects the state and structure of the industry, the number of enterprises operating in the industry, the number of animals in it and the profitability of the industry. In that sense things are not moving quite so drastically against the interests of the veterinary profession as was perhaps implied.

1403
I shall come back to my next point, but there is no shortage of vets in this country. People are entering the veterinary schools. Nor is there any shortage among those entering the profession of people who desire to work with large animals. That applies to both male and female students. In saying that, I hope that I have removed a misconception that I believe was implied. Indeed, the elective parts of veterinary courses concerned with large animals are, if anything, oversubscribed. On graduation, many students do wish to enter large farm practices. I refer not to the attitude of students themselves or of those entering the profession, but to the structure of the profession, the rewards that it offers to some extent and to the question of location.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Trumpington and Lady Byford, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, and perhaps others indicated that they were concerned about the delay in our response to the Select Committee report of another place. We have yet to respond to that report. The response will be given in full before the Summer Recess. We sought the agreement of the Select Committee and of colleagues and interested groups to delay the Government's response while we set in train work with the veterinary profession looking into the many issues which the report raised. As a result, we have carried out some useful work with the professions culminating, as was said, in the issuing today of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. Work is also under way on the action plan for veterinary support. That will probably be issued with the final response to the Select Committee report. As I say, we delayed the response to the report with the agreement of the Select Committee and of the professions.
Looking at the economics of the situation, it is clear that there is no lack of vets. It is clear also that the issue concerns how we attract and keep vets in large farm practices and the structure of rural veterinary practices. Students and incomers want to move into that area. There is increased recognition and awareness among the agriculture industry as a whole of the need to work closely with vets in order to achieve higher standards of welfare and biosecurity and to minimise potential costs arising from disease and welfare problems. We have built on that understanding with the agriculture and veterinary professions. The outline strategy that we produced last summer set up a working group with the veterinary profession to address some of the issues raised by the Select Committee and the professions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said, prevention is better than cure. Vets have a major role in prevention. It is one of the main strategic pillars of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. The Government are making a significant effort in that area and in farm health planning so that under the strategy and the forthcoming action plan we develop a way in which vets get on to farms and work in partnership with farmers and animal keepers on a long-term basis. We shall ensure a planned approach to animal welfare in the whole of the livestock sector.
1404
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, asked whether there would be a legal obligation on farmers to use or register with a vet. We do not state that in the strategy. Making that a new regulation may be to go a little far, but on the other hand it might make it clear that animal owners have responsibilities, which include the responsibility of ensuring that they get professional advice for the welfare and health of their animals. It is a question of the balance of incentives and sanctions that are needed where they fail to do that. I believe that to go an inch further in that direction might work. We are looking at that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, referred to my next point and to the affordability of vets. The affordability in part reflects the general profitability of the industry but also the structure of payments to the veterinary profession. For the farmer there is almost always a return on having good veterinary cover at the present rate of fees, and probably with a significantly higher rate of fees. However, that is not always obvious in terms of the other pressures to which farm incomes may be subjected. Given the diminishing number of individual practices, it is important that we provide a system whereby farmers can call on vets 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 days a year, and develop a greater tendency for veterinary practices to co-operate among themselves, as suppliers of a health service, to provide that cover. There has been a tradition of viewing practices as competitive rather than as collaborative. We need to address that problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, referred to the State Veterinary Service. The State Veterinary Service is about to change its status to become a first steps agency, as the noble Lord said. That will focus very much on delivery and moving it out of the core of the department so that it will be able to provide a better service within rural areas. The noble Lord mentioned figures that I am sure are completely wrong. On previous occasions I have explained the apparent decline in the figures with regard to the State Veterinary Service over the long term in that some vets have moved out to the veterinary lab and some have moved out to the Meat Hygiene Service. I shall write the relevant letter again—although the noble Lord will no doubt find a copy in his files from two years ago—explaining how the apparent decline in terms of field offices is not the case in reality. There has been a very slight decline and some unfilled posts have arisen over the past year, to answer the noble Baroness's question.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I am merely repeating an answer that, when I was a Member of another place, I received from MAFF.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in relation to the noble Lord's intervention two years ago, I tried to explain that part of the decline was a transfer out of the State Veterinary Service into the Meat Hygiene Service when we set up the FSA, and part of it was due to the previous classification of researchers. Not all the decline is covered by that, I agree, but he used a figure of 600 state vets compared to just under 300 now. A

1405
large part of that is explained by the institutional changes; that is the only point I make. The change in status and focus of the SVS will also help.
A number of noble Lords were concerned about what would happen if—God forbid—we had another outbreak along the lines of that of foot and mouth in 2001. We are much better prepared for such an outbreak than we were then, and have improved our emergency preparedness. Some noble Lords will be very familiar with the contingency plans that we have issued and worked on recently. Parts of those ensure that vets who will have identified themselves previously—they will include some retired vets, but will mainly be privately practising vets—will be able to come in immediately to help. It will be a sort of territorial army of vets, as picked up from the report from Sir Brian Follett and Iain Anderson on the outbreak.
We also have to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about needing to bring in some private vets from abroad. We have already made arrangements with English-speaking countries and our EU partners to ensure that we can get—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but did I mishear him? Earlier, I thought that he said that there was no trouble in getting graduates to go into larger-animal practices. If that is what he said, it totally disagrees with the letter that I read out from the senior partner of a veterinary practice.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is no problem with getting new graduates to indicate that they wish to go into large farm practices. However, the number of opportunities for them has diminished because of the structural change in the number of large farm practices, to which the noble Baroness referred. It is also true that the attractiveness of the small-animal sector becomes greater as the career goes on. At the point at which veterinary students graduate, a lot of them still want very much, by preference, to go into large-animal practices. That is the position that we have established in our discussions with the profession and the training institutions, and with graduates themselves.
Noble Lords also referred to the issues relating to the Competition Commission and various other measures on prescriptions. There has clearly been a lack of transparency in veterinary charging over the ages. There is a very substantial element of cross-subsidy—of income from medicine prescription into covering the cost for the actual visits and veterinary services. The Competition Commission and general competition policy does not like that sort of thing. In general, it thinks that charging should be transparent. That seems a generally important principle, so one might accept it. We are looking, however, at the economic implications. The obvious one is that, although the costs of medicines may come down, the charges for visits and other services may go up. We are therefore in continuing discussion with the industry and the profession to see how we follow through what has happened on the competition side.
1406
My noble friend Lord Carter, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and others referred to NADIS—the National Animal Disease Information Service—and the help Defra can give to it. Our officials have been engaged in quite lengthy discussions with it on how we can expand that service. We are looking at that now and expect the final report to come out by the end of July. Defra has put in some money to ensure that we look at how we can generalise some of the lessons from that.
My noble friend Lord Carter also raised the issue of cross-compliance, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also referred. That is part of the European prescription of the conditions for the single farm payment, which will relate to cross-compliance in animal welfare regulation. That applies from 2006 and 2007; it does not come in absolutely immediately. It will be a condition of receiving the single farm payment that those minimum European standards are met. Of itself, that will not cause an additional inspection activity—some people are worried about that—but it means that the existing law will have to be observed, so far as treatment of animals is concerned and care for their health and welfare, if people are to receive payment.
I have answered a number of the questions. There may well be others, but we are running out of time.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I have a very quick question on cross-compliance, which both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I mentioned. If it will be part of the scheme, which we accept, is the Minister confident that there will be vets there to carry it out? That is the question that has been raised.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, the requirement under the inspection is that 1 per cent of farms will be inspected every year. In terms of checking on one's entitlement to cross-compliance, a considerably higher number or farms are inspected for veterinary purposes in random or intelligence-led checks. I do not therefore expect a significant increase in the load on the State Veterinary Service as a result of that. If problems arise, we will clearly have to take them into account.
My thanks to everyone engaged in the debate. I shall check on other questions and reply in writing.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 3.7 to 3.10 p.m.]

Civil Partnership Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 4, leave out "of the same sex"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11. These are simple amendments to remove the blatant sexual discrimination inherent in the Bill by removing the words "of the same sex". The argument is clear and simple—the Bill is discriminatory in its nature and will almost certainly suffer a legal challenge sooner or later. I offer these amendments in a spirit of helpfulness to the Government to get them out of a future problem. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, at an early stage I indicated in Grand Committee that while I had sympathy with the object of the amendment if it was that stated by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—namely, to seek justice for heterosexual couples who are excluded from the Bill; that is why the Bill dealt with that matter originally—I was persuaded that this is not a Bill in which that should be sought. I shall explain why.
The matter is well put by the Solicitors' Family Law Association, which is a distinguished body of over 5,000 family lawyers, in its briefing for today's debate. Not only does it explain why the amendment that has just been carried was in its view most ill-considered, but it also explained that heterosexual couples should not be eligible to register as civil partners. They already have available to them the legal equivalent of civil partnership—namely, civil marriage—and by getting married the same legal rights and responsibilities are given to lesbian and gay couples who register a civil partnership. That is the first and unanswerable point.
Importantly, this authoritative body goes on to say:
"The broader and more complex problems faced by unmarried heterosexual couples relate to the increasing numbers who live together outside marriage. Many wrongly believe they have the same legal rights as married couples—a recent social attitudes survey found that 56 per cent of those questioned were unaware of the legal distinction between married and unmarried couples. In our role as legal advisers we have found that people's frequent reliance on the misconception of the 'common law marriage' makes them extremely vulnerable when the relationship ends, particularly women with children. A public information campaign alone will not address this problem. Urgent reform is needed to the law on cohabitation, but this should be dealt with by separate legislation".
The association continues:
"We welcome the commitment made by Lord Filkin to consider legislative reform and ask the Law Commission to re-examine the issues. The SFLA has developed proposals for a separate new law which would provide safety net protection for cohabitants made vulnerable at the breakdown of a relationship. With colleagues at the Law Society we have drafted a Cohabitation Bill which we hope can form the basis for further reform. We look forward to discussing it with Ministers and will make it available to the Law Commission. This should be the Government's next stage of reform, to follow the enactment of the Civil Partnership Bill".
It then outlines what it has in mind.
I never know whether the House is at its best or its worst when strong, emotional and psychological forces act upon us. I never know whether reason or information make the slightest difference to the verdict of the jury that is this House. But if information and reason have any relevance to this debate, I hope that noble Lords think
1408
that those points, made by an independent body of family lawyers—not by politicians—would explain why this amendment is, with respect, ill founded.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in view of the changed nature of civil partnership following the amendment passed earlier—although I agree with what the noble Lord has just said and we would have adopted those views—the Government find themselves unable to contribute to the amendment at this stage, except that we oppose it.
The decision that the House has just made amending Clause I fundamentally alters the basis upon which the Government have brought forward the whole Bill and on which they have consulted widely before doing so. In those circumstances the Government feel unable to proceed with any of their amendments previously tabled and to contribute to the debate on other amendments, except to indicate that we oppose them.
I thought it was right that your Lordships should know that that is the course that we intend to take in relation to every amendment that will now follow.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, we entirely agree with that view. We regard what has happened as a torpedoing of the Bill in the guise of noble motives. Personally, I am most disappointed, since it was my Private Member's Bill that began the matter in this House and the only proper course is to bring it before the democratic Chamber as soon as possible.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is the most extraordinary statement that I have ever heard from the Government Front Bench in all the years that I have seen Bills pass through this House. The Government have lost one amendment, which has changed their Bill. They have every opportunity to put that amendment to another place, should they wish to change it, because the Bill will go to another place in due course. They are effectively seeking not to take the Bill any further.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Government have said that they will not now bring forward any of the amendments that they have tabled. There is a large number of those and some of us have objected to the number of them, as we did in Committee. Can the noble Baroness tell us a little more about the Government's thinking. Why, on this occasion, do they intend not to do anything further?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall first deal with the issue of amendments. At Second Reading we made it clear that in order to make the Bill consistent we would have to table a number of technical amendments. Those amendments were predicated on the understanding that "civil partnerships" referred to relationships between same sex couples of either gender and to no other groups. The consequences of the amendment that your Lordships have just passed mean that that term—that definition—no longer applies. A

1409
"civil partnership" would now refer to a group of people considerably greater than single-sex relationships—mothers, children, fathers, grandparents and a whole series of other relationships.
Bearing that in mind and knowing that in each and every instance where we will now consider civil partnerships within that context we do not feel that we can helpfully explore the amendments, except to say that we oppose them and that we hope that the Bill will go speedily through this House so that it can go to another place.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House—I appreciate that we are on Report—we do not know what another place might do. Obviously, there is a free vote there for both the major parties, although not for the Liberal Democrat party. Another place might decide to reverse our decision.
The Government have tabled a large number of amendments which it is right should be considered at some point. Should another place reverse our amendment, is the noble Baroness saying that we will not have adequate opportunity to discuss the vast array of amendments she has put before us today and the 130 pages of amendments which were discussed in Grand Committee?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have made it plain that all the amendments which we seek to bring forward will be predicated on the definition of same-sex couples entering into the partnerships, not any other definition. All our amendments were predicated on that basis. It would be impossible for those amendments to be reconfigured in order to reflect the new construct which must be put on civil partnerships as a result of the amendment your Lordships have just passed.
I am sure that noble Lords opposite understood the consequence of what they did because I cannot imagine that it would have been done without them fully understanding that it would fundamentally alter the whole nature of the Bill—the whole nature of the Bill.
We wish the Bill to be speedy in its transit through this House so that it can be properly considered. It was a matter for noble Lords to take the view and approach that they did and the consequences that flow from that. We now face those consequences.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, it is difficult on Report to sort out a confusion of this kind because one is supposed to speak only once. However, perhaps I may pose one or two questions to the noble Baroness. She said that the Government do not propose to move the government amendments. However, a considerable number of amendments on the Marshalled List are not necessarily affected by what has happened and it would seem sensible to progress with them. Indeed, on Amendment No. 7, which I hope to move later, it may be possible to clarify many of the consequences of what has happened.
1410
Secondly, if the Government simply intend to sit on their hands at this stage, intend that the Bill will then go to the Commons where the amendment will be reversed and then come back here, what will be the procedure for considering the Bill further? We cannot do so simply on a rejection of an amendment by the Commons. That would be quite inappropriate. The Bill would be in an even bigger mess than it is now.
We need to know. It is all very well standing up and saying, "Oh, well, we don't propose to move our amendments". We need to know what the procedure is which the Government propose and, in particular, whether there is any precedent whatever for a Government making the kind of statement that the noble Baroness has just made.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as a consequence of what the House did, the House chose not to scrutinise those issues because it fundamentally disagreed with the Government's view that civil partnerships should be restricted to same-sex relationships. The consequence which flows is that of course noble Lords can table any amendments they choose. They will be debated and the Government will participate to the extent they feel able. I have indicated, as a matter of convenience for the House, that we will not involve ourselves in the details of the debate but say simply that we will oppose the amendments.
We are not seeking to deny the House the proper opportunity to scrutinise. The House has chosen to act in the way that it has. That means that in relation to certain matters the House has lost the right to scrutinise. That is our right. Noble Lords went through the Lobbies and voted on that basis. Now we have the consequences. It is a matter which has not been of the Government's making.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, with the leave of the House—it is difficult on Report to try to sort out the problem—can the noble Baroness comment on the second point I raised? How do the Government now propose that the Bill will proceed? Does she propose that it will go to Third Reading or does she have some other procedure in mind? If the Government do not move any of their amendments and the Bill goes through totally unamended to another place, it will not be satisfactory for the other place simply to reverse our amendment and then for the Bill to return here merely on that reversal. We would need to have a completely new arrangement to cover the return of our amendment if, as seems likely, the Government succeed in reversing it. We need some view from the Government, either from the Chief Whip or otherwise, on the procedure which we will now follow.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the procedure is absolutely and precisely as it always is; that is, the Bill goes through Report stage and Third Reading and then proceeds to the Commons. It is a Lords starter so it will go through all its stages in the Commons where the Government will put forward whatever amendments they want to put forward. The Bill will then return here

1411
and we shall deal with Lords consideration of Commons amendments in the normal way. The effect of our earlier vote, without wishing to be repetitive, has a knock-on effect on virtually everything on the Marshalled List for consideration today.
The Bill will proceed in the normal way; that is, any Member of the House can move the amendment down in his name; they can be debated and the Government will give whatever response they feel appropriate. We have indicated that it might be minimal in view of the decision made earlier today. The short, simple and precisely accurate answer is to say that the Bill will continue to be considered in exactly the same as any other Bill.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell the House exactly what we are discussing at the present time? I understand that an amendment has been moved and spoken to and the Minister has wound up. According to the rules, that should be the end of the matter.
If we are going to have a discussion about procedure, many of us will want to take part in it. That is why I ask the Chief Whip for clarification of the present position.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we have moved seamlessly into a procedural discussion from a discussion on an amendment. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who was a long-standing and, perhaps I may say, tough Whip in the other place, knows that perfectly well. I strongly suggest to the House that we proceed precisely in the old familiar track in the old familiar way. We should put forward amendments for discussion, move them or not, withdraw them or not and vote on them or not. Why do we not get on with the business?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am trying to be helpful. I do not understand what the Government Chief Whip is saying. He is saying that the Bill will go through the normal procedures in this House, then go to another place where the amendment we have just carried is likely to be reversed and then return to us here. However, I am not clear how we in this House can possibly discuss the detail of the Bill simply on a government amendment to an amendment we have carried in this House. As I understand it, there is not the scope to discuss all these issues.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I need to remind the House—this is a point on which I feel strongly—that the Bill is a Lords starter, as was the Constitutional Reform Bill. Both were strongly argued for by my noble friend the Leader of the House and myself as being desirable to be Lords starters. It is important that this House has important Bills to consider first and foremost.
I shall confine my remarks to this Bill and not include the Constitutional Reform Bill. If a fundamental change has been made in this House to
1412
the nature and substance of a Bill, as in this case, clearly, the sooner we can get it to the other House which can consider it properly in the normal way—not considering Lords amendments but considering it through all its stages—the better. Frankly, I cannot see the problem or the difficulty in the Bill coming back here with a series of Commons amendments for us to consider in the normal way. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, suggested, it is possible that the process will take longer. I fully understand that, but it seems to me that the procedure is simple.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may respectfully suggest—I do not move—that the House adjourns for a few moments to try to resolve this problem. It is wholly unacceptable that we should continue on the basis which the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has, with the best intentions, set out. He had to say what he said because of the procedures to be followed. But I suggest, without moving, that the House should adjourn for a short time to see whether some accommodation can be made.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I really do think that that would waste everyone's time. We need to proceed with this Bill. No change in procedure or normal practice is being suggested. The vast majority of amendments that come before this House are not put to a vote. Quite frequently, amendments which appear on the Marshalled List are not moved. That is precisely and exactly where we are at the moment. Numerically the balance may be a little different and it is possible that rather more amendments may not be moved than is normally the case, but I do not think that anyone in the House does not understand or appreciate that. The sooner we get on with the business of this very important Lords starter, which we want to continue discussing, the better. We should get on with it and complete the various stages of the Bill without having an extended debate which, I suggest, is unnecessary.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it seems to those of us who have listened to this procedural debate for only the past few minutes that the Government have had a collective fit of pique about a decision taken by the House a couple of hours ago to include an amendment against the Government's wishes. On the back of that, the Government are now saying that the amendments that they had proposed, and had wholly intended to move in order to clarify various aspects of the Bill, will now not be moved. That is my understanding of the situation, and I understand that the Bill will now go to the Commons.
Can the Government Chief Whip tell us what will happen to the amendments on the Marshalled List which, I understand from our Front Bench, were all agreed? They were helpful and explanatory amendments and they should be proceeded with. My further understanding is that the Division won earlier does not affect those amendments and does not affect fundamentally the

1413
substance of the Bill. If the Government wish to behave in what appears to me to be an extremely churlish fashion, they will suffer the consequences.
Lord Grocott: My Lords. I shall try once more, probably in vain, to close down this discussion and move on. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that, far from suffering from a fit of pique or anything else, the only anxiety and stress that I feel in this situation relates to ensuring that we finish the debate before the match starts tonight.
I strongly suggest that this situation is no different from any other, except for the fact that the effect of the amendment that was carried is to redefine a fundamental part of the Bill, and that affects virtually all the other amendments that are to be considered. Is there really anything else that we can find to say? I cannot think of anything.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I may speak now. In fact, I think that I am the only person who should be heard under the procedures of the House, and I have behaved with great restraint during this discussion. As I understand it, the Government do not like the amendment, they will keep secret from the House their reasons for not liking it, and they would be obliged if we would just get on and talk to a blank wall. I confess that I do not find that a very satisfactory arrangement.
However, if I may say so, I believe that behind that approach is the fact that there must have been a panicky telephone call from the Treasury. That is at the heart of it. The noble Baronesses opposite say, "No, no. The Treasury? Good gracious me. The Treasury? It would not be the Treasury's concern". The amendment has done nothing to attack the principle of the Bill. All those who would have benefited under the Bill as it was introduced essentially remain to benefit. The earlier vote on the amendment of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain has done nothing to detract in any single way from the privileges or rights which the Bill would extend to certain groups of people. That vote has meant that another group or two of people have been made beneficiaries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, looks astonished. I thought that she got hold of that idea earlier today. Most of us did, and that is why we voted for my noble friend's amendment. We wanted to benefit another group of people in order to reduce the inequities which the Bill would have created.
I can accept that in respect of certain bits and pieces the Government will want to scratch their head—for example, in relation to the provisions on the rules of evidence and the right which was to be extended to civil partners not to testify against each other. The Bill is, in every sense and every detail, a parody or mirror image of civil marriage. I can understand that.
I could have understood it if the noble Baroness had said that she thought that the House should adjourn early today and that the Report stage would proceed in a week or so after the live departments and however many hundred civil servants involved had gathered together their resources and the bean-counters had
1414
totted up the sums and made an estimate for the Chancellor of how much it might cost him in lost revenue if these privileges were extended to other people. Indeed, I could have understood it if the noble Baroness who speaks for the Government on social security had totted up on her calculator how much it would save the Treasury because it is a two-way bet.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said this morning, some people might lose if they enter a civil partnership but some might gain. I rather doubt whether people who would lose would be willing to go into a civil partnership, and so the noble Baroness should not worry her head too much about that. But she would want to juggle the figures and we could all understand that.
As I said earlier when I introduced the amendment—and did so very briefly—I do not want to make life difficult for the Government. However, that seems to have been a long time ago. I just want to be helpful in any way that I can. I am beginning to feel that it would not be appropriate for me to push this matter to a Division at this stage, but we shall have to return to it at Third Reading. Indeed, we may have to find ways of coming back to it when the Bill returns from the Commons.
But when the Bill reaches the Commons, unless something has changed there, I warn the noble Baroness that a very complex and long Bill such as this will almost certainly be timetabled—that is, guillotined. It is possible that great hunks of it will not be discussed at all in the Commons. Therefore, some of the Government's amendments, which they are now so shy about putting forward, may not be discussed properly.
I said earlier that in my 30-odd years in Parliament I have never encountered such a monumentally incompetently drafted Bill. Bills which have been in gestation longer than a baby elephant now come forward more than 50 per cent longer because pages have been added by government amendments in the Committee and Report stages. But the Government now say that, because my noble friend has secured the agreement of the House to a comparatively simple amendment, they are going to take their bat and ball home and will not even discuss their own amendments.
This is a most extraordinary situation. I now sense that most noble Lords would say to this legislation that it will have to go through as ill considered as it was ill drafted. The Government appear not to want to defend their own legislation in this House because the Treasury says that it cannot count the cost again. The noble Baroness wriggles a lot, but she knows full well, as my noble friend Lady O'Cathain explained earlier, that this Bill is essentially a Bill about money. If the Treasury is the problem—I suspect it is—why do not the Government back off and say that no civil partners of any kind will have the advantages of the avoidance of inheritance tax. That would make the situation much easier. I see the lawyers want to try to be helpful.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it requires unusual stupidity or courage to interrupt the noble

1415
Lord, Lord Tebbit, when in full flow. However, as I made the only speech in regard to his amendment, I should like him to reply to the points that I made. He has not replied to a single one.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I must confess that I did not believe that the noble Lord had made any points about this amendment. I know I am getting on a bit and tend towards absentmindedness, but I am sure that he would not want to tempt me to speak on an amendment that was not the one that had been moved. I want to be helpful to everyone. I take the view, which is only a little more extreme than the Government's, that we should all go home. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 6, after "is" insert "only"
The noble Duke said: My Lords, this is a fairly brief amendment. If I am not mistaken, it is likely to exclude one group of possible contestants and, to that extent, it might please the Government. The Bill refers on page 1, line 6 to a relationship,
"which is formed when they register as civil partners".
The amendment changes that wording to a relationship,
"which is only formed when they register as civil partners".
The amendment ensures that the only method of forming a civil partnership will be by registration with the proper authorities. Perhaps it is no secret to your Lordships to find that the amendment was first put forward by the Law Society of Scotland, whose view is that the new statutory arrangements should clearly ensure that there is only one route to establishing a civil partnership. That will reinforce clarity in respect of the new partnership arrangements. Customary routes should not have the capability of emerging over time. The amendment will limit that possibility.
I can see what is in the back of the Law Society of Scotland's mind. As noble Lords are probably aware, in Scotland one can be treated in law as being married by habit and repute. Therefore, one does not have to go through a particular ceremony. It obviously wanted to clarify the fact that, if we introduce this new contract arrangement, it would not eventually be argued that it could be established by habit and repute. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we say that there is no need for the insertion of the word "only". It does not add anything to the way in which it can be interpreted. We oppose the amendment.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, that does not leave me with much to add at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 9, after "4" insert "(subject to section 253(3))"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments would give the Northern Ireland Assembly a say—indeed, the final say—in bringing the Northern Ireland provisions of the Bill into effect. Amendments Nos. 6 and 196 amount to a sunrise clause on Part 4 of the Bill. I am delighted that these amendments have been co-signed by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, who, as we all acknowledge, is a great authority in this House on the Northern Ireland issue.
I also have some knowledge of the Province. It is out of concern for the opinions that I know are held by the great majority of the people of Northern Ireland that these amendments have been tabled. It is obvious to everyone, except perhaps to government Ministers, that there is strong opposition to the Bill from people throughout Northern Ireland. That is a view that transcends the tradition of the Catholic/Protestant divide and the political Unionist/nationalist divide.
What is especially shocking about the Government's decision to impose civil partnerships in the Province is that they are daring to do so while the Assembly is suspended. At the very time when they should be exercising the greatest restraint, it seems that Ministers are desperate to put a highly controversial issue on to the statute book before the Assembly reconvenes. I may be unduly suspicious but it seems to me that the Government see the suspension of the Assembly as a heaven-sent opportunity to impose on the Province legislation that the Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland would never accept. My amendments would give the Assembly the final say.
The commencement order to bring the Northern Ireland part of the Bill into effect would have to be approved by resolution of the Assembly. Clearly and unhappily, we do not know when the Assembly will be reconvened, but Northern Ireland's politicians should have the chance to debate these measures. That means waiting until the current impasse is resolved and if it does approve the provisions, so be it.
In the early part of this year, the Government carried out a two-month consultation period in Northern Ireland by comparison with a three-month consultation period in England and Wales. Of the respondents to the Northern Ireland consultation, 86 per cent opposed the plan. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, commented in Grand Committee that he thought that the number of responses was small. In fact, if one compares the number with the responses to the England and Wales consultation, which I notice lasted a month longer, the proportion of the Northern Ireland population who responded was more than four times greater than that in England and Wales.
Lord Alli: My Lords, the noble Baroness may recall that my substantive point on the consultation process was not the small number of responses, but I asked the Minister whether there was evidence of an organised letter-writing campaign. She referred the matter to her department and I believe that the response circulated was that there was indeed evidence of an organized

1417
letter-writing campaign to that consultation process, which threw up, I suspect, the result that the noble Baroness is discussing.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Alli—I do respect the noble Lord—was there any evidence of a concentrated letter-writing campaign in England and Wales?
Lord Alli: My Lords, that was not for me to ask. I simply asked about Northern Ireland as that was a substantial issue facing the Grand Committee and appeared to be one of the major building blocks in the argument of the noble Baroness as to why the legislation should not apply to Northern Ireland.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has not listened to the main problem that I have with this legislation, which is that it will be railroaded through Northern Ireland at a time when the Assembly is suspended. I do not believe that any Member of your Lordships' House does not recognise how sensitive the suspension of the Assembly is at the moment. We all want the Assembly to be reinstated. We want to see peace in Northern Ireland and we should not introduce legislation that could be difficult at a time when the Assembly is suspended. That is the major plank of my argument. If the noble Lord had listened to me earlier, he would have heard me stress that fact.
Of course, we do not need government consultation to tell us that the people of Northern Ireland are more conservative and more religious than those on the mainland. I suspect that that is one of the reasons why there was such overwhelming feeling against the Bill. In the England and Wales consultation process, 83 per cent of the people were in favour of the Bill. At the time, government Ministers trumpeted that to the press and said that it reflected "overwhelming public support". When the Northern Ireland consultation showed 86 per cent opposition to the Bill, suddenly public opinion became irrelevant to the Government. No government Ministers trumpeted that fact.
The recent census shows that there were only 288 same-sex couple households in Northern Ireland. If the Government are right that only 5 per cent of same-sex couples will avail themselves of civil partnerships, Ministers want to railroad the Bill through the Assembly to change the whole of family law in the Province for the sake of 15 same-sex couples.
I firmly believe that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to their views; they are entitled to be listened to by the Government. At the moment they have no means of expressing their views to the Assembly about this highly controversial issue. Surely that is undemocratic, unfair and unjust.
The Government may resent the fact that most politicians in the Province do not support gay rights, but if they believe in devolved government they must accept the views of that devolved government. The Scottish Parliament had the opportunity to debate
1418
these provisions when it passed a Sewel Motion on 3 June. Northern Ireland's politicians should be given the same opportunity. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the Bill is not about economics, whatever anyone may say, it is about human rights and justice. Gay people in Northern Ireland suffer more than usual from prejudice. They are as entitled as anyone else in what is still a United Kingdom to have their human rights protected.
I hear from the Northern Ireland Gay Rights Association that it would feel extremely bitter if such people were to be excluded from a Bill which would acknowledge that there were and should be particular human rights in the rest of the United Kingdom and they were denied them.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this issue caused a great deal of heat and perhaps not very much light in Grand Committee. We take the view that this Parliament is now responsible for the government of Northern Ireland because the Assembly has been suspended. In that case we have to take the decision whether these rights should be extended to people who live in Northern Ireland in the same way as they are extended to those who live in Great Britain.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. It seems to me that so long as we are responsible for human rights in Northern Ireland we cannot give rights to citizens this side of the Irish Channel which we do not extend to citizens who live in Northern Ireland. Therefore, in our view the amendment is misguided and we shall oppose it.
Lord Alli: My Lords, without rehearsing our debates in Grand Committee, the arguments of the noble Baroness boil down into two major areas. First, there are not very many gay people in Northern Ireland anyway so why should we do this? She said in Grand Committee that there were only 238 couples in the census and therefore she did not see why the legislation should apply to Northern Ireland.
The second objection of the noble Baroness essentially seems to be that because Northern Ireland can unite around a common cause of prejudice against gay people perhaps we might absent them from this particular case. We have had two notable speeches in the previous debate—that of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, who is now in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—and have listened once again to people talking about unnatural sexual acts and the hijacking of the word "gay".
In the Northern Ireland context, I would say that this piece of legislation is probably needed more than in any other place. It will allow people who wish to register their civil partnerships to stand up and have protection in a way they do not at the moment. So the debate we witnessed less than two hours ago probably reinforces the need for this legislation more than anything else I have heard in the House.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Bill was introduced there were discussions with the usual

1419
channels about whether there should be pre-legislative scrutiny. The Official Opposition party and my party agreed that there should not be pre-legislative scrutiny, even though the Government explained that there would be a particular problem about Northern Ireland. They explained to us, all cards face up on the tables, that it would take them a little longer to get the amendments on Northern Ireland into the Bill, partly through consultation and the need to do the careful work.
I then discussed the matter with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. We both agreed that the argument in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny was not well founded, and that the sooner we got the Bill into and through the House and enacted by Parliament, the better.
It is therefore unfair to the Government, our two parties having taken this approach, for noble Lords to seek to suggest, as I think was suggested, that in some way the Government have acted improperly in producing a lot of amendments in Grand Committee on Northern Ireland after the original Bill was introduced. We knew that perfectly well in advance. When those amendments were introduced, in order to achieve clarity of intelligence on all our parts, a special procedure was adopted at my suggestion whereby the whole Bill in an amended form would be provided to us informally with all the explanatory notes that Ministers had.
We then had very full debates on all the Northern Ireland amendments. It is simply unfair and disingenuous now to complain.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, historically in Ireland one of the great political problems has been the perception of England imposing laws in that island and, since 1921, in Northern Ireland. Let us not repeat the error again today. It is a matter not of human rights but of democracy and devolution. Either the Liberal Democrats support devolution or they do not, but they cannot have it both ways. If you accept the policy of devolution for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland, and since you agree that Scotland can make its own decisions in its own Parliament on this issue, then logically you should also accept the right of the people of Northern Ireland through their elected Assembly to make their own decisions. They will not be ones of discrimination against marriages for people of the same sex.
There is a common understanding among the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland—Presbyterian, Anglican and Roman Catholic—on this particular issue. There is this common feeling in Northern Ireland and people such as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others should respect it and not try to override or impose their opinion on the majority of people in Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland Assembly, of which I am a Member, is suspended temporarily. However, tomorrow at Lancaster House the Prime Minister Tony Blair will sponsor and host an all-party round table discussion on the issue of restoring devolution to Stormont in
1420
Northern Ireland. I think we should wait for the Assembly to be brought back into operation in Northern Ireland; and supporters of devolution should leave it to that Northern Ireland Assembly to make its decision for the people of Northern Ireland and not to impose a decision from outside.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words, although I doubt whether they will have much effect, having heard the Government's new constitutional doctrine that they do not respond to amendments on Bills that are Lords' starters so that they can deal with them much more easily in another place.
I make a few remarks in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. I offer the apologies of my noble friend Lord Glentoran. He hoped to be here to deal with the amendment but very much regrets that for business reasons he is unable to be here today. However, he wants to underline the point my noble friend made that when the consultation process took place in Northern Ireland some 86 per cent of the responses were in favour of not making a change and were opposed to the proposed changes to be imposed on Northern Ireland by the Bill.
I think that it must be rare indeed in such a divided community for such clear breadth of opinion to be behind the sense of the kind of amendment put forward by my noble friend. How odd is it in this age of devolution for the Westminster Parliament to take a piece of legislation and impose it on the people of Northern Ireland, whose government may be at the moment in suspension but where, none the less, devolution is the norm?
As we are in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, perhaps I may remind her that it was only on Tuesday when we discussed the Higher Education Bill that we debated amendments where concerns were raised on all sides of the House about the effects of academic freedom in Wales for certain matters to be devolved fully to the National Assembly for Wales. Despite the warnings from various noble Lords on the Government Back Benches, the House none the less resolved not to obstruct the will of Welsh Ministers and the Welsh Assembly, because these matters were devolved. In replying to that debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, will remember that she said that the Government are satisfied that the Assembly is best placed to make the judgment about how it wishes to take this forward.
4 p.m.
All that this amendment asks is that the people of Northern Ireland, who have a far longer tradition of devolution going right back to the 1920s, should have the same degree of respect. Therefore, I hope that the Minister—whichever Minister is replying, perhaps it will be the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—will give some sort of response.
Since the Leader of the House will respond, I wonder whether I could take her on to amendments slightly beyond this one. We have heard from one of

1421
her Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, that the Government do not intend to move any of their amendments this afternoon. Therefore, we presume that when they seek to overturn the decision taken earlier on today they will put their amendments in the Commons, they will then come back to this House, and we will have no chance whatever to discuss them. It would therefore be legitimate of me to ask the noble Baroness how she expects us to deal with those amendments when they come back to this House.
I will start by looking briefly, if I may—although I appreciate that I might be slightly out of order—at the first group of government amendments that we were going to deal with before the Government announced this new and peculiar—policy that is government Amendments Nos. 13, 15, 17, 20, 24, 25, 34, 36 and 37. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, helpfully and kindly wrote a couple of letters to us earlier in the month setting out what was happening with those amendments and with some other amendments. She did not help her cause, or perhaps the Home Office did not help her cause, in that both letters were undated. That was just the first sign of the incompetence that my noble friend Lord Tebbit has talked about—
Lord Alli: My Lords, I am finding this difficult to follow. We were discussing Amendment No. 6, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, about Northern Ireland. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain why he seems to have moved on to a different group of amendments. We should try to finish one group of amendments before we move on to another. Many of us have been through Grand Committee, and we have dealt with this Bill line by line. We want to consider things in the right order and in the right place. The noble Lord is in danger of going off into a conversation that no one will follow except him and the Minister. With due respect, this is Report stage, and we have been through Grand Committee. Can the noble Lord deal with Amendment No. 6? If he wishes to, after that he can perhaps find some other procedural measure to cover the other amendments.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord—
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I suggest to noble Lords that we stick to the grouping of the amendments as proposed. We are dealing with Amendment No. 6, which is grouped with Amendment No. 196. If the noble Lord has points to make on other amendments, perhaps he can make them at the appropriate place.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, was most helpful to his Government, and no doubt they will take note of that. In due course, I look forward to seeing him on the Front Bench in the weeks or months to come.
I accept that I was out of order. I was dealing with amendments that were beyond those in the group. I was doing that purely because the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is here, and she will be responding to Amendment No. 6. She might therefore be able to advise the House as to how we will be able to discuss
1422
those amendments that will go to the Commons, be moved in the Commons, probably not be discussed in the Commons, and we will have virtually no chance of discussing them here. It might be that we will have to seek changes to our procedures in this House when those amendments come back. I merely make that suggestion. If I decide not to detain the House too long, perhaps the noble Baroness will take some trouble to answer those points on those amendments that we are advised by her colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, the Government have no intention of moving later this afternoon.
Having said that, I offer my support to my noble friend Lady O'Cathain for her Amendments Nos. 6 and 196. If she does not move the amendments today, I hope that she will consider doing so on another occasion.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I remind noble Lords who oppose this amendment that the law in Northern Ireland on sexual matters already differs from that in the rest of the United Kingdom in that the age of consent in Northern Ireland is 17 rather than 16. So there is a precedent. My main purpose in rising is to ask the noble Baroness who is to reply to confirm an answer that was given to me in Grand Committee, I think by the Leader of the House, to the effect that the Northern Ireland Assembly, if and when it reconvenes, would definitely have the power to repeal this Bill if it goes through and becomes an Act in so far as it affects Northern Ireland, if a majority of Assembly Members so decided. Can the noble Baroness please confirm that on the Floor of the House?
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, there should not be any doubt about the attitude of the elected Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It has always been a tradition that those matters that affected the entire community right across the religious divide would be dealt with by its own elected Assembly. It is true that the Assembly looks to be some way off. That should not in any way give us the opportunity in this place to impose on the people of Northern Ireland of all religions and all political views something that they clearly would not want any more than they wanted, for example, abortion legislation when it was carried through these two Houses.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulties here. Some noble Lords may recollect that I tend to take an interest in both social legislation and legislation affecting Northern Ireland. They have come together here today. I also have an attachment to the concepts of parliamentary debate and fair play. I am tempted to support my noble friend's amendment if she takes it to a vote, but I would feel slightly uneasy about doing so if I had not heard the arguments put by the Government that might be to the contrary. If all I hear from the Government is, "No, we do not like it", but with no reasons given, what am I to do? I must make up my mind having heard only one side of a debate. All other noble Lords will be in the same position. For example, I am uncertain as to whether if

1423
the legislation goes through unamended in respect of Northern Ireland—that is if we do not accept the amendment proposed by my noble friend—that the Assembly when it is reconvened would have the power to undo it.
I hope that the Leader of the House will not stick by the undertaking given or the threat made by her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, that all we will hear is whether or not the Government like or dislike this amendment. I hope that she can find it in her heart to be so generous as to give us the Government's view, which I think would be quite authoritative, about whether the Northern Ireland Assembly would or would not have the power to repeal this. Surely, it is essential to know that before we can take a decision on the amendment.
It would be unparliamentary conduct if we were to be denied the benefit of the noble Baroness's view, which will no doubt be buttressed by the notes about this issue that are received from the officials in the Box. After all, in this House today, there is no one more authoritative on the matter than the noble Baroness. Before I make my decision on this amendment, I will await what she says. It would not be fair to do otherwise—would it?
By the way, while I am on my feet, I am so glad that l stayed on to hear this little debate. I shall now know where to find in Hansard the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the subject of the way in which we treat the people of Northern Ireland. As I understood them, his immortal words, which I jotted down—I shall not hold them word by word, but I shall look them up in the Official Report tomorrow—seem to show a remarkable similarity to things that I have said on Northern Irish legislation in this House more than once; namely, that we must not treat the citizens of Ulster differently from the remainder of the citizens of this kingdom. Amen to that. But almost every bit of Northern Ireland legislation that I have seen passing through this House during the time of this Government has done exactly that. That is why I have voted against so much of it. I welcome the prospect of having in the Lobby with me time and time again in the future, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I apologise for being a few minutes late returning to the Chamber. I have spoken earlier on this issue. This is not the first time that I have tried to persuade the Government to tread carefully. After 30 difficult years, which were nothing to do with today's issue, Northern Ireland is in a period of transition.
Again and again, those of us who live and work in Northern Ireland are looking for points where the community can come together. In social terms, we are not and never have been anything other than a compassionate society. Politically, we have had huge difficulties. But socially, I believe that Northern Ireland is as compassionate a region as anywhere within the United Kingdom. We do not indulge in gay
1424
bashing and such things. Even the noble Lord, Lord Alli, would probably concur with me on that. It is not a practice that—
Lord Alli: My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me. But, if it is of any help, I could write to him providing some of the details of the abuses and violence in Northern Ireland towards young people and particularly young gay people. Rather than bore the House with that, perhaps he will let me do that.
At this Report stage, we already know what the Government think. We heard it ad nauseam in Grand Committee. I think that we particularly heard the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. On looking at the Official Report, one will find the Government's position 100 times over.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am relieved that I do not tempt the noble Lord, Lord Alli, to expand on what he has already said. Within Northern Ireland there is a general consensus. People will not accept having this legislation imposed on them: 87 per cent of respondents in Northern Ireland have indicated that at best they do not understand what this legislation is about. That is not the basis on which to move forward in a region of the United Kingdom that has other problems to solve during this transitional period. So I ask the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, to press ahead with this amendment on the basis that we cannot have, for example, Northern Ireland excluded when it comes to the Mental Capacity Bill but included when it comes to this Bill.
There is inconsistency so far as the Government are concerned. When it suits the Government to include Northern Ireland, without deep consideration of the needs of the people of Northern Ireland we are included in legislation. When it suits the Government to do otherwise we are excluded. As the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, remarked there is no consistency. Let us not add antagonism to what is a bad Bill. I think that the result of the previous vote indicated that the majority feel that this is a bad Bill. Again, let us not add antagonism to what is a bad Bill by pressing this issue against the proposed amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will seriously consider the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I made the Government's reasons for legislating in Northern Ireland very clear in Grand Committee. Those reasons concern fairness and social justice, Perhaps I may restate for the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, what I said in Grand Committee and which was reported in Hansard: when the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are restored, they will be able to decide on transferred matters. I oppose the amendment of the noble Baroness.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I thank her very much for what she has said and for the fact that she has already breached the policy set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland,

1425
who said that the Government would not reply in any way to the amendments put before the House. Now that we are back to normal working, can we get on?
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, it is strange to be moving an amendment in this atmosphere. It is completely new to me and, I would guess, completely new to all noble Lords in the Chamber today. But so be it, we have to get on with the business in hand.
On the issue of Northern Ireland, I think that the point has not been accepted; that it is due to the fact that the Assembly is suspended and is therefore not capable of making either a decision to say "yes" or "no" or of making any kind of contribution to the debate that I feel that it is quite outrageous to impose this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Alli, suggested that I had all sorts of reasons for putting forward this amendment, but the only reason is that the Assembly should have the right to decide.
I want to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who said that agreement had been reached between the Front Benches about pre-legislative scrutiny. Some of us are not party to such agreements. Some of us are little, humble Back Benchers who never hear about what is going on in the corridors of power and between the usual channels. But, let us face it, we are part of the legislature as well. We have the right to hold our views, to express and to debate them. I do not want to be rolled over and told that there is an agreement between the Front Benches that pre-legislative scrutiny is not on order and therefore, in other words, the Back Benches are to be muzzled. That is not what I joined this House for.
I do not want to become acrimonious over this issue because it is too important for that. I have listened carefully to all noble Lords who contributed to the debate, and in particular to the contribution from Northern Ireland. I wish that noble Lords really understood Northern Ireland. I can understand that they think that Northern Ireland has had an all-too difficult past and has been a problem for many years, in fact since 1921. But the reality is that it is an important part of the United Kingdom and we cannot either ignore it or ride roughshod over it. That is wrong, and we ought to take the lead by saying just how wrong it is.
There is no question that if I were to press the amendment to a Division, I probably would not win. So I simply tell the Government that I shall come back to it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
"( ) For tax purposes registered same sex couples will be treated in the way as set out in the Finance Act 2004."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Wilcox. In the light of earlier exchanges, it is clear that some of the Government's amendments are affected by what happened earlier in the day. But it is
1426
also the case that some may not be. If that is so, perhaps it would be convenient to move and debate those amendments. The same applies, to a greater or lesser extent, to our amendments.
I hope that Amendment No. 7 will be extremely helpful. In the light of the present circumstances, I shall not make the same speech as the one that I made in Committee; I shall seek to be as constructive as possible. However, the point I made in Committee is still relevant.
On the day the Bill was published the Inland Revenue issued a press release on the Civil Partnership Bill, child and working tax credits, child benefits and guardian allowances. It stated:
"The Civil Partnerships Bill is social policy legislation, so any tax consequences will be dealt with in the first available Finance Bill.
One would assume that that would mean the first Finance Bill in which it was possible to incorporate the clauses implementing what the Government have in mind with regard to taxation and civil partnerships. I have difficulty in interpreting that part of the press release in any other way.
I do not understand, therefore, why the Government have not included it in the Finance Bill which is now going through another place—which, I believe, concluded its Committee stage a day or two ago, or is in the course of concluding its Committee stage and will then go on to Report stage—as it is clearly the first available Finance Bill. No such clauses have so far been introduced. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness who is to reply will tell the House whether it is the Government's intention to fulfil the clear promise in the Inland Revenue press notice that they would introduce the tax provisions in the first available Finance Bill.
The Government may well argue that the implications are very different in the light of what has happened today. In a spirit of constructive approach to this problem, I have a solution for them. No doubt the Government have been informed—I presume that they are a joined-up government—that an amendment seeking to introduce a new Clause 6 has been tabled in the House of Commons. This relates to Clauses 279 to 281 of the Finance Bill, which deal with inheritance tax. It has been tabled for discussion either in Committee or, if there is not sufficient time, at Report.
The new clause relates to the transfer of real property on death between joint occupiers, of whatever relationship, so that the survivor is not called upon to sell the home or to fund inheritance tax instalments they may not be able to afford. It makes transfer on death an exempt transfer to the extent that it comprises a part or a whole share in a real property that has been occupied as the main residence of the transferor and the transferee throughout two years prior to the date of death, and disregards any absences during that period arising from any residential nursing care.
So far as inheritance tax is concerned, the effect of the clause would be to meet many of the concerns raised in the debate earlier today. It would have the added advantage that those receiving the benefit of

1427
such a clause would not in any way have to sign up to a civil partnership. It would solve that problem at a stroke, if I may put it that way.
It would be extremely helpful if the Government would indicate that they understand these arguments. The House of Lords has certainly expressed very clearly, in the context of the present Bill, what it believes ought to happen to carers and those in danger of losing their house. An acceptance of that amendment—without any of the complications involved in doing it through this Bill—would enable this. It would provide a solution to the present dilemma. I hope very much that that can be done.
Another point emerged in Committee which has not been fully appreciated, although one of the right reverend Prelates made the point earlier in the debate. Those living together would be able to form a civil partnership if they were same-sex couples, without necessarily having any sexual relationship. The noble Baroness made this clear in Committee. Quite apart from any provisions made with regard to those with a family relationship, they will in any event receive the benefits of the inheritance tax provisions.
The Government rely heavily on press releases, often in strange circumstances. It would be very helpful if they could say clearly that it is their intention to implement in the Finance Act the same tax provisions which exist for married couples. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could clarify that point. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to whether we can achieve the same objectives that the House clearly indicated it wished to achieve without necessarily affecting the Bill, which I am anxious to see on the statute book.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I replied to this amendment on the first day of our Grand Committee proceedings, in cols. 36 to 42 of Hansard. I note, too, that this amendment refers to "registered same sex couples" being treated as married couples,
"as set out in the Finance Act 2004".
By virtue of the amendment that the House passed shortly before the short adjournment, the noble Lord will know that that definition now causes us some difficulty. I am not able to add further comments to those I made in Grand Committee. At this stage, we have to oppose the amendment, for the reasons I gave on the last occasion.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not clarified why provisions will not be made in the first available Finance Act. My other point was that acceptance of the amendment would cover the groups we are discussing as well as a rather wider group, and that would help in both contexts. I give way.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. As I recollect, this point was perfectly clarified in Grand Committee in a dialogue with my noble friend Lord Goodhart, who, unfortunately, is not in his place. It was explained exactly
1428
why it would have to be the Finance Act, when that would apply and the way in which it would be done. I do not have the record in front of me, but I am fairly confident that that happened.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, my point is that an amendment is already tabled in the other place, although not by the Government, which would enable them to fulfil the implicit—indeed, the explicit—promise they made in the press release.
At all events, this amendment is sufficiently wide to deal with the Bill as it was before it was amended today and after its amendment today. Therefore, the difficulties created by accepting that amendment would be overcome, provided the Government, the Treasury and the finance legislation team were prepared to go along with this proposal, which seems the obvious way around these problems. If the noble Baroness is not prepared to say any more, it seems an extremely unhelpful way of proceeding. I intend to withdraw the amendment but will return to it at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

CATEGORIES OF CIVIL PARTNERS OTHER THAN SAME SEX COUPLES
(1) Two persons within the specified degrees of family relationship, both of whom are aged over thirty years, shall be eligible to register as civil partners provided that they have lived together for a continuous period of twelve years immediately prior to the date of registration.
(2) Schedule (Specified degrees of family relationship) contains provisions for determining when two people are within the specified degrees of family relationship."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Formation of civil partnership by registration]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Eligibility]:
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 33, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (IA),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert—
"(1A) Subsection (1)(a) and (d) shall not apply in the case of two people who wish to register as civil partners under section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Types of pre-registration procedure]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 23, leave out "(including those procedures as modified by section 20)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the amendment belongs to the House, and the Minister does not want to move it herself, I thought it would be helpful to the House if I moved it on her behalf. In moving the amendment, I will also speak to government Amendments Nos. 15, 17, 20, 24, 25, 34, 36 and 37.
I thank the Minister for writing from the Home Office to me and to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and others with an explanation of this amendment and some of the other amendments before us. I explained to the House earlier, before I was interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that it did not help that the letters from the Home Office—that most efficient of departments—were not dated, especially as one of them says, "As I made clear in my letter of 17 June". I am not sure now which one of them is the letter of 17 June, but I presume that it is the one that does not say that. It must be the other one. However, the Minister did offer a number of explanations of the wide variety of amendments that she was putting before the House. I am grateful for that.
This group of amendments is largely dealt with in the undated letter that I presume is the one of 17 June. Government Amendments Nos. 13, 15, 17 and 20 are dealt with on page 1 on her list entitled "explanation of government amendments". Government Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are then inexplicably dealt with on page 7 of the explanatory note that she sent to us. Government Amendment No. 34 was again dealt with on page 1. Government Amendment No. 36 was dealt with on page 2 and government Amendment No. 37 was dealt with on page 37.
I do not know whether I should read out the full details of these amendments. Amendment No. 13 is described merely as a technical amendment that does not affect the effect of Clause 5. I apologise to my noble friend for stepping on his foot. However, some of the other amendments have slightly longer explanations. If the House wishes, I could give details of those—unless the Minister herself wishes to respond to her own amendments and give some explanation of them.
I find it odd that, when it comes to grouping their amendments, the Government have the expertise to manage and to persuade us that it is wise that government Amendments Nos. 13, 15, 17, 20, 24, 25, 34, 36 and 37 should be taken as one, but that, when they give the explanation to those of us principally involved in the Bill—as opposed to others—they manage to scatter them around in sheets of paper, all undated, in a manner that makes it very difficult to follow what is going on. That is why, when I was dealing with Amendment No. 6 and was interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, I wanted some explanation from the Government about how they propose to find some means whereby we could discuss adequately all the government amendments that they intend to produce—I presume—in the Commons after they have sought the wishes of the Commons in trying
1430
to overturn the earlier amendment. How do they expect us to be able to follow what they are doing and ensure that this House performs its role as one equipped to provide proper scrutiny of the Bill?
My noble friend Lord Tebbit earlier referred to this Bill as being prepared in a "monumentally incompetent manner". I believe that that is correct. That was quoted by a noble Lord opposite as being some attack on the Bill. It was an attack not necessarily on the Bill but on the manner in which the Bill was prepared. It means that it is even more important that we in all parts of the House properly and adequately debate the intricacies of the Bill.
I appreciate that there are many more government amendments. I do not know whether I shall necessarily be able to stay to discuss them, but others will—and that is all I intend to say on the matter. But I believe that it would be helpful if the Government could give us some sort of assurance as how they intend to allow this House properly to debate and discuss all the amendments before us. If the Government do not feel able to do that, it might be left to noble Lords such as myself or others to go through the explanation of government amendments tabled to the Civil Partnership Bill, sent out on 17 July, and read out every single explanation that the Government have given. However, I believe that most noble Lords would accept that that would not be a fit way in which to discuss the amendments that come before us. Other than that, all I can suggest is that we find some other procedure, when we come to the consideration of Commons amendments, that allows us properly to discuss the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I refer to the Government's statement from earlier this afternoon by my noble friend Lady Scotland. In the light of that statement, these amendments are not appropriate to the Bill in its new form. Therefore, on behalf of the Government, I have nothing further to say.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, may I press this matter further? I observe that many Members of your Lordships' House, much more experienced in its procedures than I am, are at least as puzzled if not more puzzled at what seems to be happening.
The situation appears to be this—and maybe I can draw one of Her Majesty's Ministers to respond to it. Among the points made when the House voted earlier was that the vote was in disagreement with the character and impact of the amendment. The Government lost on that vote, which has surely to mean that among the things that the House did when it made that vote was to vote down the Government's understanding of the situation.
To me, as a child in matters of procedure in this House, it remains the Government's responsibility to engage fully in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that we needed to proceed with the Bill—which, it appears to me, is what the Government are not doing. Not to proceed with the debate seems to me not to take note of the vote of this House. Of course, that does not mean that the

1431
Government should change their mind, but they have a responsibility to pursue the procedure of the House. That was what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, in his role as Chief Whip.
The word "pique" did not occur only to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who is not in his place—I wrote it down on my piece of paper, too. Her Majesty's Ministers owe it to the House that the House can do its business—which is surely, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, to proceed with this Bill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am puzzled by the situation in which we find ourselves. If the Government choose not to move an amendment, that is their affair. If someone else chooses to move the amendment, that is their affair. No one is obliged to say anything on any of the issues.
The problem that needs to be faced by the right reverend Prelate and others is as follows: I should have liked to move Amendment No. 102, which relates to pensions. If I had made a speech on that amendment, I would have drawn attention to important recent cases. But when one looks at Amendment No. 102, one can see that it is predicated upon a civil partnership between two same-sex couples. The moment when words are altered to include a whole variety of other categories, our amendment makes no sense whatever.
I am now incapacitated from moving that important amendment, so long as the Bill is in this House. I shall therefore not do so. But my argument does not apply to that example alone—it runs right through the Bill. That is why I said that Amendment No. 3 was a mischievous wrecking amendment, destroying the entire purpose of the Bill in this House.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was beginning to make a very good and valid point. In fact, he was on the verge of making an excellent speech until he spoilt it with the last two or three sentences. I thought that he was coming, through the logic of his remarks, to the conclusion that it would be appropriate if the House now adjourned and that we did not come back to Report on the Bill for a little while, until the Government had sorted these matters out. It should not take them very long. I imagine that they have the best brains of the country at their command. They do not appear to have used them very much so far, but I am sure that they could make a better effort, given a week or two. We could get on with other business in the House next week. There is no particular rush on this. It might ease the problem of which is the next available Finance Bill and other such tricky issues for them. It would make it easier for everybody. I think we could all go home and consider what has been done today. Perhaps the Government Chief Whip might advise us whether he is attracted to the idea of pulling up stumps as opposed to sitting in his tent and—well, the word that comes to my mind is rather hard, it is "sulking".
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness is going to respond to that but I am not sure whether it will help much. We have now had "nyet" from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland; we have had "nyet" from the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, the Leader of the House; we have had "nyet" from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis; and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, makes it four.
All I can say is that we are not going to let this go away. We want debate to make sure that we can discuss all these matters adequately and we will discuss them adequately. If we cannot discuss them here on Report, or if we cannot discuss them properly at Third Reading, for the rather odd reasons that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, then we will have to discuss them and discuss them at length—I say that to the noble Lord the Chief Whip—when the Bill comes back to this House for consideration of Commons amendments. Then so be it. But this House will make sure that it discusses all these matters properly, in the manner that it ought to do. Having said that—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain whether it is the position of the Opposition that they want speedy enactments in favour of same-sex couples?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I understand it, even if it gets speedy enactment, the Bill will not come into effect for some time. We have no shortage of time, whatever the noble Lord says. If he thinks that speedy enactment of Bills should mean that we should not discuss them, other than the odd intervention from noble Lords on the Liberal Benches, I have to say that I think he is wrong. I think that the whole House should be able to discuss the Bill and we should not be deprived of doing it by the Government because of rather odd procedures that they wish to bring in. Before I withdraw the amendment, I think that my noble friend Lord Denham wants to make an intervention.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have never heard anything quite like this before in this House. I think that, on reflection, the Government may feel that they have behaved with a certain lack of courtesy. They did not give any sort of warning about what was going to happen after the Division, which was subsequently carried against them. We are now left in a position where we are getting no answers at all, which has never happened in this House before. We are presumably expected to let the Bill slip through without any of the government amendments being moved and without any other amendments being replied to. I wonder whether, in the circumstances, the Leader of the House can come back and explain to the House whether this is the sort of treatment that we can accept in future. I think that the right reverend Prelate spoke extremely well on this and I am very sorry that his speech did not produce a reply from Her Majesty's Government.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, it is with some reluctance that I am again drawn to the Dispatch Box, but I wanted to repeat precisely and exactly what I said before. There is no pique or sulk on the part of the Government. It is simply that it is nonsensical to move government amendments that were tabled earlier and predicated on a situation that no longer exists. There is no discourtesy to the House in any Member—including a member of the Government: we are no more or less favoured than anyone else—deciding they do not wish to move their amendments. If the amendments are nonsensical in the light of a subsequent decision, then it is a courtesy to the House not to waste its time by moving amendments that are just that—nonsensical on the basis of a decision that has been made.
I say to the right reverend Prelate that there is absolutely no discourtesy in doing that. I hope that we can proceed on the basis that if a Member, including a government member, does not want to move his amendment, the House can simply proceed to the next amendment. I am sure that that is precisely what has happened in all the long experience of the noble Lord, Lord Denham.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the amendment that was passed earlier has changed the whole basis of the Bill and so it is now not possible to debate the Government's amendments. I think that that is the point that he would put. But that must apply to all the other amendments as well.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, that is up to noble Lords.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is up to us. However, he cannot say that there are two sorts of amendments—government amendments that are now not valid and relevant to the Bill; and everyone else's amendments that are—and so we should get on and discuss our amendments, with no replies from the Minister and no reasoning, with only half a debate at best—amendments that he would say do not relate to the Bill as it now stands. He nods. Then it seems to me that there is only one conclusion to be reached. He should move the adjournment of the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): Why, my Lords?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord nodded to the proposition that I made—that it is nonsensical to discuss the amendments. That means that no one has had an opportunity to table amendments that are relevant to the Bill as it is following the earlier vote. Surely any reasonable man would say, "Let us break off for a few days". At the end of that few days, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, with his customary ingenuity
1434
and remarkable legal ability, will have drafted new versions of his amendments that would fit to the Bill as it has been amended. Then we could get on and have some proper debates. The Government could come forward and tell us the implications of everything that is going on.
What the noble Lord is saying is that he wants to get the Bill out of this place—with his tail between his legs, if I may put it that way—and dash it off down to the other place where the children will not interfere with it unduly. They will be timetabled. It will be chopped up bang, bang, bang, bang. Debate? My Lords, I do not believe that that is a proper way to behave. And I do not believe that, in his heart, the noble Lord does either.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am rather torn now. I was minded to withdraw the amendment. However, I have a sneaking feeling that the best way to see where the Government stand on this would be for me first to ungroup it from the rest of the group.
Noble Lords: It was withdrawn.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I did not withdraw it because I was interrupted before I could. Having not withdrawn it, I think it is now open to me to press it and see just what the Government's attitude to it is.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, unless I completely misheard the position, the noble Lord—
A Noble Lord: Order.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley): My Lords, the Question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, "Content'. To the contrary, "Not-Content".
Noble Lords: Not-Content!
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I think the Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, Tellers for the Contents and for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order 54. A Division therefore cannot take place. In accordance with Standing Order 57, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such an amendment, 1 declare the amendment disagreed to.
Clause 8 [Notice of proposed civil partnership and declaration]:
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wonder whether noble Lords who wish to speak to each other would do so outside because the noble Baroness is unable to speak and we await her comments with interest.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, in good faith in this House, I beg to move Amendment No. 14 which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Higgins. The amendment concerns Clause 8, which details some of the standard procedure for forming a civil partnership. Subsection (2) tells us that:
"A notice of proposed civil partnership must contain such information as may be prescribed by regulations".
Our amendment would leave out that subsection.
Many noble Lords will remember the equivalent amendment from the days that we spent in Grand Committee. The argument has not changed since then. I am sure that none of us needs reminding that we are now working from a Bill of two volumes—at least, the Opposition are. Our argument is simply that, in a Bill of such size, we do not see why the Government need to leave out details that they will add later.
In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, stated that the information likely to be required for the notice was,
"a person's name, age, occupation, address and marital/civil partnership status".—[Official Report, 12/5/04; col. GC 142.]
If the Government know what information the notices need to contain, why is that information not mentioned in the Bill? It cannot be because they are shy of tabling amendments to their own Bills, given the volume of them with which we have been faced in Grand Committee and on Report. Perhaps that is not quite what I should say at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I could not quite understand what the noble Baroness was getting at, in terms of the protection that she seeks to gain by not allowing the Bill in her view—to write a blank cheque. Can she indicate what issue she is trying to pursue with the amendment?
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am awfully sorry; I thought that I had been very clear. We have already discussed the question in Committee, but I am very happy to repeat what I said if that will help the noble Lord.
Lord Alli: My Lords, is the noble Baroness specifically seeking to put the information into the Bill?
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, gave quite a clear statement, as the Bill is so big, and as we are taking so much trouble to put so much into it, this noble Baroness is suggesting that
1436
it would have been helpful to put the information into the Bill. That is what I ask for at this stage—nothing more than that.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, in view of the statement made earlier, the Government have nothing to add to the arguments made in Grand Committee. We therefore oppose the amendment.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am naturally disappointed in that response. Having ploughed through the Bill in Committee and as I am now ploughing through it on Report, I am quite prepared to take my amendment away and return with it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Power to require evidence of name etc.]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 21, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to a clause concerned with the power to require evidence of the details of people who wish to become civil partners. It is becoming apparent that some of the amendments are significantly affected by the amendments agreed earlier, and some are not. If amendments are not affected significantly by those amendments, or would be relevant whether those amendments had been accepted or not, it may save time later and anyway be a sensible way of proceeding if the Government respond to them.
We discussed the matter in Committee. At that time, the Minister said that the Government would look at the points again. I merely inquire whether they have come to any conclusions as a result of doing so.
5 p.m.
Perhaps I may raise an additional matter that has arisen since we discussed the matter in Committee. In marriages special procedures exist for immigrants or asylum seekers—I am not clear which. They will be required to go to a special office if they wish to be married. That is designed, no doubt, to avoid marriages of convenience which overcome the immigration requirements. That may be relevant whether or not the amendment carried earlier is acceptable. In addition to the points that I made in Committee, can the Minister say whether or not the provisions for civil partnerships will be specified in a similar way to those that apply to people wishing to marry? That would seem sensible. Perhaps the Minister could outline the Government's intention at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the amendment illustrates as well as any the difficulty that we are in, because the amendments were tabled before we made the fundamental change to the Bill. All of these amendments would have to be reconsidered if the Bill were to remain as amended.

1437
I introduced my Bill two and a half years ago and it rightly took the Government two years to produce an extraordinarily long Bill. That length of time was also right because the Bill had to cover the whole of marriage law in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales and apply it mutatis mutandis to same-sex couples. If one were now to seek to alter the amendment and all of the other amendments to accommodate a wider range of relationships—an extraordinarily wide range that goes well beyond the object of the Bill—the consequence of that would be that it would take a team of Government lawyers, Ministers and their advisers not less than two years to produce not two volumes, but probably five volumes of a single Bill, even though the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, suggested that I was clever and could somehow do it. It would become an omnibus Bill, a portmanteau Bill, into which had been packed a wide range of other social relationships that were well beyond the needs of same-sex couples.
That is why I oppose the amendment and any other amendment predicated upon the Bill that has been changed by this debate. The Official Opposition have told us from the beginning, through their leader, the right honourable Michael Howard, that they were in favour of the Bill, that they were a new party in favour of gay rights for the first time in their history and that they would accelerate the Bill by having no pre-legislative scrutiny. But they are now saying to same-sex couples, "You can forget about that, because we will filibuster when the Bill comes back from the Commons. We will keep this going as long as we can because we do not really believe in its objective".
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we have not the least intention of filibustering the Bill. My party's position is clear—in fact, not my party, because, unlike the Liberal Democrat Benches, we are on a free vote. But the leader of my party has made the position clear: we are anxious to put the Bill on the statute book.
One of the ways around the problem that we have encountered today would be to cover the points about which the House is concerned in the finance legislation. Then we could proceed with this Bill without those matters. That does not mean that it is not reasonable to move the amendment, particularly to clarify the situation with regard to immigrants and asylum seekers, which I raised with the noble Baroness. In Committee she said that she would look at the matter again. The points that were raised then are in no way affected by the amendment carried earlier and it would be reasonable for the Government to respond. There is no question whatever of filibustering the Bill. On the contrary, we are anxious to make progress.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I have no wish to be disrespectful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, as I am sure he will recognise. However, as he was looking for a detailed response from us, I have to disappoint him. The Government have nothing to add to the
1438
arguments made in Grand Committee, save to say that it is simply not necessary on the face of the Bill to list all the documents that would be acceptable evidence of these different types of information. We therefore oppose the amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, that is a clear answer to the points made in Committee. The noble Baroness said that she would look at the matter and we now have her considered view on it. However, I hope that we can clarify the other point that I raised, to which there was no response. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, may be prepared to give a clearer view at Third Reading and I may well table an amendment to that effect to cover the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Proposed civil partnership to be publicised]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Issue of civil partnership schedule]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Evidence to be produced]:
Lord Higginshad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 19:
Page 11, line 14, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, some amendments are affected by that which was carried earlier and some are not. This amendment is now even more relevant, but one would need to consider the implications of what has happened in deciding whether it is drafted in precisely the form which would cover the points we want to raise. I shall not move it now but will return to the matter at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Issue of Registrar General's licence]:
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Regulations and orders]:
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 16, line 4, at end insert—
"( ) with respect to determining whether two people have lived together for the period of twelve years specified in section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 23:
Before Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE A1

  Specified degrees of family relationship
  (1) Two people are within the specified degrees of family relationship if one falls within the list below in relation to the other.

  Adoptive child

  Adoptive parent

  Child

  Former adoptive child

  Former adoptive parent

  Grandparent

  1439

  Grandchild

  Parent

  Parent's sibling

  Sibling

  Sibling's child

  (2) In the list "sibling" means a brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Registration by former spouses one of whom has changed sex]:
  [Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
  Clause 41 [Attempts at reconciliation of civil partners]:
  Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 19, line 3, after "applicant" insert "at the first available opportunity"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment concerns Clause 41 which details provisions on attempts at reconciliation of civil partners. The clause would allow a court hearing an application to dissolve a civil partnership to adjourn proceedings if it appears that the civil partners have a reasonable possibility of achieving reconciliation. The clause states that the court must make provision for the applicant's solicitors to certify that they have discussed with their clients the possibility of reconciliation and to provide the applicant with details of persons qualified to help the civil partners effect reconciliation.
  In Grand Committee, I first raised our concerns regarding this clause in a general clause-stand-part debate, but have now drafted an amendment which is more suited to the point we are trying to make. Our amendment would ensure that the applicant's solicitor raises the possibility of a reconciliation with his client,
  "at the first available opportunity".
  We are looking for a way of ensuring that reconciliation is raised by the solicitor as early as possible and not at the courtroom door. An early reconciliation will save the applicant money and both the applicant and the court system time. As I have said on many occasions, civil partnerships are not something which should be entered into lightly and they should be given all the chances that can be given to reconcile such a relationship. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this may be a very decent and well intentioned amendment and, under other circumstances, it may be the kind of amendment that the Government would want to consider. But, as I understand it, it is designed to deal with the situation where a civil partnership between a same-sex couple is breaking up and those involved are going through a process, which, had they been an opposite-sex married couple, would be called divorce.
  Given the amendment that was agreed to this morning, it is very difficult to see how one would apply any such vocabulary to the ending or dissolution of a
  1440
  civil partnership between, say, a mother and son or a brother and sister who remain mother and son or brother and sister even after the civil partnership is over.
  Therefore, the noble Baroness will understand that I simply cannot engage in this debate, much as I would wish to do so, because the context within which the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, perfectly decently, would otherwise have been discussed is now completely different. Therefore, I am afraid that the Government cannot make any further response.
  The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, following the events earlier today, I entirely understand the Government's difficulty. However, on the assumption that Parliament will, by one route or another, get its act together and sort out the confusions that have arisen, perhaps I may say that the clause that we are debating is a very interesting piece of legislation. I am delighted to see it, and I have some sympathy with the amendment because it also has an implication for matrimonial law and practice.
  The language of reconciliation is used on the face of the Bill. I know that the noble and learned Lord who was Lord Chancellor, and who introduced a very important Act of Parliament, Part 2 of which the Government decided not to fulfil a while back, made some efforts to get that into matrimonial law.
  If we sort out the mess—I believe that we are in a mess with regard to this Bill—and we find a way of proceeding, perhaps I may say to some noble Lords opposite that this is not just about gay and lesbian couples; it is about same-sex partnerships. Can we keep the language clear so that we include all those who may potentially benefit if we get our act together? However, I should like to encourage the Government to "roll on" if we reach that point and to think about the implications for matrimonial practice as well.
  Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the Minister's response to me. However, I had written down "civil partnerships, same sex" and I hope, too, that at some stage we shall be able to consider this amendment. I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. I was a little confused earlier and I hope that he will excuse me as I nearly referred to him as the Bishop of Guildford. He is right. We are talking about same-sex couples here, and I am delighted that we can at least place that on the record in Hansard. I hope that at some point we shall be able to return to the amendment in some form to see whether we can take it further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 53 [Validity of civil partnerships registered outside England and Wales]:
  [Amendments Nos. 27 to 33 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
  Schedule 5 [Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.]:
  [Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
  Clause 77 [Adoption]:
  [Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
  Schedule 9 [Family homes and domestic violence]:
  [Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
  Clause 82 [Formation of civil partnership by registration]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 38, line 7, after "has" insert—
  "(a) freely agreed to enter a civil partnership, and (b)"
  The noble Duke said: My Lords, this is one of several Scottish amendments which have been put to us by the Scottish Law Society. This amendment ensures that the parties to a civil partnership clearly agree to enter the partnership. The reason given by the Law Society is that the Bill infers that parties agree to enter the civil partnership by, for example, contemporaneous inscription of the civil partnership schedule. However, there is no specific requirement for agreement between the parties. The amendment provides for that agreement. It would also allow for avoidance of the partnership if a party lacked capacity or was induced to enter the partnership through fraud or under duress. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, in view of the changed nature of civil partnership following the earlier amendment, I am unable to contribute to the debate on this amendment at this stage. In common with the rest of the Bill, the Scottish clauses are fundamentally altered.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, in view of that statement, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 83 [Eligibility]:
  Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 38, line 20, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A),"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guitinghad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 41.
  Page 38, line 26, leave out "of understanding the nature of civil partnership" and insert "of—

  (i) understanding the nature of civil partnership, or

  (ii) validly consenting to its formation".

  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words on this amendment. The Government have tabled amendments that cover some of these Scottish issues, which are very well thought through.
  1442
  In a way, if the opportunity were open to me, I would prefer Amendment No. 41 to my Amendment No. 42. The same would apply to Amendment No. 47 rather than Amendment No. 48, which are in this group. We are in rather difficult territory at the moment.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I remind noble Lords—if they need any reminding—that the Scottish clauses in the Civil Partnership Bill achieve the same policy purposes as Part 2, but they have been drafted to reflect the special characteristics of Scots law. In view of the fundamental change in the definition of civil partnership, following the earlier amendment, I shall not be able to move the Scottish amendments tabled on behalf of the Scottish Executive.
  The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, surely it is the case that whatever the disagreement about the character of civil partnership—we could spend a lot of time on that—it is important that it is entered into responsibly. Therefore, it seems to me that, with respect, what the Minister has just said has no logic. How the partnership is entered into is important, whatever its character. Therefore, it seems to me that this is an amendment that can work.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to differ. I believe that there is an absolute logic in the position that I am taking. We are harmonising English law with Scottish law. If the definition of civil partnership has changed in English law as a result of the vote earlier, we are not comparing like with like. Many of the amendments that the Government were to propose came to us as a result of helpful interventions by the Law Society of Scotland. I anticipate that in due course I shall be able to do the job that I had hoped to do this afternoon, which was to make absolutely sure that there was no conflict between English law and Scottish law in this very important matter. This afternoon I am unable to move the government amendments for that reason.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, however the Bill is drawn up, whatever it covers—whether it covers one group or a wider group, as a result of the earlier amendment—it is important that Scottish law, in particular in relation to these amendments, should be properly written into the Bill. The object of the Law Society of Scotland, as I understand it, in making these suggestions both to the Government and to ourselves, was to improve the way in which Scottish law will apply to whomever it applies. Whether it applies to the narrow group that the Government originally intended, or to a rather wider group, as a result of the decision taken by the House earlier, the Scottish law should be right.
  When the Minister reflects on this matter, he will consider that the Scottish law should be right in either case. It seems to me that at least some of the amendments

  1443
  should apply, whether to the narrower group or to the wider group of people. That is particularly true of government Amendment No. 41, which my noble friend the Duke of Montrose said he prefers to the earlier version.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope. In the speaking notes for Amendment No. 41 the phrase "civil partnership" is on every other line. Civil partnership now does not mean what it meant when we started at eleven o'clock this morning.
  That is not something that I can do anything about; it is a reality that I have to confront at 5.20 this afternoon. If I talk from my notes about civil partnerships in England and compare them to civil partnerships in Scotland and what needs to be done to harmonise the two concepts, I shall get into a terrible muddle. I cannot do so because we are now dealing with two very different terms. I apologise to the House for taking this stance, but I have been put into this position, as have all Ministers, by the amendment moved this morning and carried by the House.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Like my noble friend Lord Cope I am equally puzzled. I understood that the Bill and the legislation we have in front of us about civil partnerships exactly matched the legislation on marriages and that whatever group one is talking about, if one wishes to parallel the legislation on marriages one would use exactly the same phrase.
  [Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
  Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 43:
  Page 38, line 26, at end insert—
  "(1A) Subsection (1)(a) and (b) shall not apply in the case of two people who wish to register as civil partners under section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples)."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 not moved.]
  Clause 89 [Objections to registration]:
  [Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved]
  Clause 90 [Place of registration]:
  [Amendments Nos. 49 to 51 not moved.]
  Clause 110 [Civil partners: competency of interdict]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 52:
  Page 56, line 19, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  "(1) It shall be competent for the Court of Session or the Sheriff to entertain an application by one civil partner in a civil partnership for a relevant interdict."
  The noble Duke said: My Lords, the amendment rewords Clause 110 to make a more positive statement of competency for interdict proceedings in the Court of Session or sheriff court. The clause is required
  1444
  because Clause 109 follows closely the wording of Section 14 of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act, which created the concept of matrimonial interdicts.
  The provision currently employs a double negative. The society is of the view that this could be more clearly expressed. There is no logical necessity to follow the earlier statutory provision, which in any event relates to matrimonial law. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am in exactly the same position as I was on the previous group of amendments. I have nothing to say to the proposed amendment of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, would the noble Lord have been able to accept the amendment if we had not amended the Bill earlier?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I think we will have to await future developments.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 114 [Dissolution]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 53:
  Page 59, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).
  The noble Duke said: My Lords, the amendment deletes the provision for dissolution on the basis of desertion. Clause 113(3)(b) reflects the provisions contained in Section 1(2)(c) of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976.
  The Scottish Law Commission has recommended that desertion as a basis for establishing the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage should be abolished. Accordingly, it is appropriate in relation to the civil partnership that this thinking is reflected in the law.
  The amendment reconstructs the law relating to dissolution and judicial separation. The Scottish Executive has published a consultation paper on family law reform called Family matters: improving fluidly law in Scotland. It contains firm proposals for two years. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, again, I feel unable to contribute to the debate, although I think that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, would be very happy with the answer that I would give him if I was able to.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, may I take that as an implied acceptance of the amendment?
  The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, while the noble Duke is on his feet, is not the logic of that that he should press his amendment?
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.]
  Clause 117 [Separation]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 56:
  Leave out Clause 117.
  The noble Duke said: My Lords, this amendment would delete Clause 117. Clause 117 provides for judicial separation in respect of civil partnerships. Until 1861, a judicial separation was the only consistorial remedy for cruelty and it was only in 1938, when cruelty became a ground of divorce, that separation became less common. It is still competent in a marriage context for people who do not wish to be divorced for religious reasons, given the provisions for dissolution that interdict, and there appears to be no good reason why judicial separation should be extended to civil partnerships. The Law Society of Scotland wants to probe the reasons for including that in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, again, I must say that at this stage, I am unable to respond to the noble Duke's amendments.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, surely the Minister could explain why the Government originally proposed to insert that into the Bill?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, perhaps I may explain that this is Report and I have sat down.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, it is obviously difficult to proceed on this basis.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause I18 [Dissolution following on decree of separation]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 57:
  Leave out Clause 118.
  The noble Duke said: My Lords, this amendment raises the same argument as that in the previous amendment with regard to Clause 118. I beg to move.
  5.29 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 56) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 104.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Ampthill, L. [Teller]

  Byford, B.

  Astor, V.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Cox, B.

  1446

  Crickhowell, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Denham, L.[Teller]

  Montrose, D.

  Elton, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Erroll, E.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Freeman, L

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Higgins, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Home, E

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Howe, E.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Laird, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Tebbit, L.

  Luke, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Addington, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Alli, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council

  Howarth of Breckland, B.

  Howe of Idlicote, B.

  Andrews, B.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L.

  Bach, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Barker, B.

  Joffe, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Listowel, E.

  Blackstone, B.

  Ludford, B.

  Borrie, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Bragg, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  Maclennan of Rogart, L.

  Carter, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Northover, B.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Ouseley, L.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Pendry, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Rea, L.

  Desai, L.

  Richard, L.

  Drayson, L.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Roper, L.

  Elder, L.

  Russell, E.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor

  Sawyer, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Falkner of Margravine, B.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Simon, V.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Steel, of Aikwood, L.

  Finlay of Llandaff, B.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Gale, B.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Gavron, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Gilbert, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Goodhart, L.

  Tope, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Triesman, L.

  Greengross, B.

  Tunnicliffe, L.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Hamwee, B.

  Wall of New Barnet, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Harrison, L.

  Warner, L.

  Hart of Chilton, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Haskel, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Henig, B.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagree to accordingly.
  5.40 p.m.
  Clause 120 [Nullity]:
  [Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
  Clause 121 [Validity of civil partnerships registered outside Scotland]:
  [Amendments Nos. 59 to 65 not moved.]
  Clause 123 [Regulations]:
  Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 66:
  Page 63, line 21, at end insert—
  "( ) Regulations so made may in particular make provision with respect to determining whether two people have lived together for the period of twelve years specified in section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples)."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
  Clause 134 [Eligibility]:
  Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendments Nos. 68 and 69:
  Page 67, line 16, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A),"
  Page 67, line 22, at end insert—
  "(1A) Subsection (1)(a) and (d) shall not apply in the case of two people who wish to register as civil partners under section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples)."
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 155 [Regulations]:
  Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 70:
  Page 75, line 14, at end insert—
  "( ) Regulations made under subsection (1) may in particular make provision with respect to determining whether two people have lived together for the period of twelve years specified in section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples)."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 157 [Powers to make orders and effect of orders]:
  [Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
  Clause 165 [Supplemental provisions as to facts raising presumption of breakdown]:
  [Amendments No. 72 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
  Clause 179 [Supplementary provisions as to declarations]:
  [Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
  Clause 185 [Transfer of proceedings]:
  [Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
  Schedule 15 [Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland]:
  [Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 not moved.]
  Schedule 16 [Financial relief in court of' summary jurisdiction etc.: Northern Ireland]:
  [Amendments Nos. 79 to 82 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 not moved.]
  Clause 204 [Meaning of "overseas relationships'']:
  [Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
  Schedule 20 [Meaning of overseas relationship: specified relationships]:
  [Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 87:
  Page 314, line 19, at end insert—

  "United States of America: Massachusetts

  same sex marriage or civil union, as the case may be"

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 87 is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. It is an example of the Gilbert and Sullivan situation which the House has been put into today that the position is now as follows. Had not the Bill been wrecked, making pointless Schedule 20 to it, the Government would have moved Amendment No. 86. I am delighted that they would have done because they have decided to include the two Canadian provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia in the schedule because each of the registered partnership schemes satisfies the Bill's criteria.
  Amendment No. 87 seeks to include the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Schedule 20. Certainly this would not be pleasing to the President of the United States, but it would be pleasing to many other people in Massachusetts and beyond. I shall explain. The Bill contains a power to specify jurisdictions which have schemes that fulfil the requirements to be recognised as civil partnerships in the UK. At present the only United States jurisdiction specified is Vermont. I and others hope to persuade the Government—and certainly when the Bill reaches the other place—that it would be right to include Massachusetts in the specified list. That is because, as the Government fairly concede, its gay marriage provisions fully meet the prescribed criteria in the Bill.
  I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for her letter to me of 10 June that was copied to all Peers who spoke in Grand Committee. I do not agree that the law in Massachusetts is subject to what is referred to as,
  "such uncertainty that it would be premature to include Massachusetts same-sex marriage in Schedule 20".
  As regards the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the legal position is clearly set out in the first judgments of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in the Goodridge case where Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who I had the pleasure of meeting again the other day, conveniently summarised the relevant provisions for registration of marriages under Massachusetts state law. As the Government concede, it is quite clear that they fully satisfy the general requirements and conditions in the Bill.
  I can say with the authority of others that there is no prospect of the decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court being challenged or reversed between now and the coming into force of the Bill. I understand that in May the Supreme Court of the United States rejected an attempt to prevent gay marriages being registered. To amend the Massachusetts state constitution, there would have to be a referendum in two years' time. Even if that were successful in amending the law, it could not take effect for a further two years. Moreover, if it were

  1449
  successful, it would turn gay marriages into civil unions, which would equally satisfy the matching requirements of the Bill.
  I suggest that it is unfair and unnecessary for gay and lesbian partners who have registered lawfully under the prevailing Massachusetts legislation which meets the requirements of the Bill to be left in doubt about what will happen once it comes into force at some point next year, particularly given that the content of the Massachusetts law would not be altered, if at all, for at least two years and, if altered, would still fully meet the requirements of this Bill.
  5.45 p.m.
  I know that the Government have received representations from the General Court of Massachusetts and from 24 or 25 state senators. Perhaps I may refer to the letter that they sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. They said:
  "We are delighted that the United Kingdom is considering passage of a Civil Partnership Bill.
  "We understand that the Bill specifies particular jurisdictions as having schemes that fulfil the requirements of civil partnerships in the United Kingdom".
  They then explain that only Vermont is covered in the specified list and hope that the Government will include Massachusetts. The letter continues:
  "We hope that the United Kingdom Government will agree that it is unfair and unnecessary for gay and lesbian partners who have been married lawfully under Massachusetts law to be excluded once the Civil Partnership Bill comes into effect next year, particularly given that the content of the Massachusetts constitution will not be altered (if at all) for at least four years. If the United Kingdom does not recognize these relationships, families will be hurt if they decide to relocate from Massachusetts to the United Kingdom.
  "Thank you for your consideration of our request".
  The letter is signed by state senator Barrios of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and 24 or 25 other state senators.
  Why does it matter? I t matters because there will be, let us say, middle-aged same sex couples who are married now under Massachusetts law. Like everyone everywhere in the world, they know that the law could be changed in Massachusetts. But they are there now and they need to know what their legal position is.
  If the Minister were to reply to the amendment—I am not requesting that she should—she would confirm, I am sure, that such people will have no problem because they will satisfy the general conditions in the Bill. But how will they know that on the basis of a Pepper v Hart statement made by the Minister today? They will know it if Massachusetts goes into the schedule.
  What possible reason could there be for not putting Massachusetts into the schedule? I am sorry to say that the only one I can think of is entirely political. We have a coalition government in some areas between this Government and the Government of the United States. We do not wish to offend the President of the United States, who went on record as soon as the court
  1450
  in Massachusetts made its decision. While the President was in London, he denounced the decision and said that he would seek to reverse it.
  Any reversal using the federal constitution would probably take about 20 years. As the Minister knows—because she and I both had the privilege of a graduate education in the United States—it is extremely difficult to carry a constitutional amendment requiring the approval of all the states. It is ridiculous and unfair for gay and lesbian couples to be left in a position of legal uncertainty for reasons that do not pass muster. For example, in Canada, the law can equally be changed, and it can be changed in any of the other jurisdictions listed in the schedule.
  I do not expect the Government to say today that they accept the amendment—I expect them to stick to the line that they have taken—but I have no doubt this issue will be raised in the other place. It might be better to raise the issue in the other place, where parliamentarians who are elected can listen to parliamentarians who are elected in Massachusetts and in the US Congress.
  I have sufficient optimism in the Government, who have been splendid in the way in which they have approached the Bill. This is one of my only two rubbing points; otherwise the Bill is extremely welcome in all other respects. It would be very sad if the Government were, in that well-known cliché, to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar.
  I very much hope that, even though the amendment will not be acceptable today, the mind of the Government will be sufficiently ajar for them to look more closely at the legal situation in Massachusetts. My amendment gives same-sex marriage or civil union as the two alternatives, which would deal with the situation should the law change. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to what I am seeking to do with the object of explaining to the citizens of Massachusetts what the implications would be if they changed residence and came to this country. I beg to move.
  Lord Alli: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on this particular amendment. I believe that the Government's position, as outlined in Grand Committee, is wholly inconsistent. If the state of Massachusetts has made gay marriage legal, then until an appeal is successful, those citizens should be treated as having a civil partnership in terms of recognition under the Bill.
  I would push the Minister to look at the issue again but I suspect, on a non-party political point, that I will get the same response as the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Lester. I suspect that she may not be tempted to go into this matter, even if it is put to her from this side of the House, but at least all parties will suffer.
  The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, while I regret the character of the Massachusetts legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will understand, that

  1451
  does not seem the point at the moment. What he has proposed seems entirely in line with the Bill as it is, in my view—as it was, in the view of the noble Lord and the Government. I believe the proposal is entirely in line with the Bill as it is, although the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, think that it has been more radically changed than I think it has been. However, that is not the point at issue.
  I thought there was not a leaf to be put between the Front Bench and the noble Lord. It is not possible to do business with the Bill now and the Government have been refusing to move their amendments, but the noble Lord has moved his amendment. The craziness of the situation seems a few notches crazier as a result of the noble Lord's latest intervention.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and my noble friend Lord Alli rightly anticipated the Government's response, I am afraid, due not so much to the instability of the situation that arose this morning but to the instability of the situation in the United States. These arguments were addressed much more fully by my noble friend Lady Scotland in Committee, and I do not need to rehearse them. Both my noble friend Lord Alli and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will understand where the Government are coming from on this issue.
  I also regret that I do not think that at this stage I can sensibly and usefully move the government amendment. But if, on reflection, we feel we can, we will come back to it at Third Reading.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. I thought it was sensible to move the amendment because, although it has become a nonsense in that it makes no sense to have a schedule of this kind which deals only with same-sex relationships, if one is concerned about recognising carers across the world in the way that one is recognising homosexuals throughout the world one would need to amend the schedule radically to include wives, husbands, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers and others all over the world who would have to be given recognition if they came to live in this country. That is why I began by saying it is a Gilbert and Sullivan situation. My amendment has in any event been wrecked by what the Official Opposition have done.
  The only argument that has been put forward is that the situation in Massachusetts is unstable. I must be the most optimistic Member of this House in saying this, but I very much hope that even at this stage officials will look more carefully at exactly what the situation in Massachusetts is, and we can help them to do so. The position is not unstable. The present position is that the marriage code in Massachusetts has been applied verbatim to gay and lesbian couples. I quite understand the right reverend Prelate's objection to the absolutism of the view taken by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts, which said that civil partnership is not enough—it must be marriage because there must be total equality under the state
  1452
  constitution. I personally understand why many people believe that to be a step too far. I do not agree with them, but I understand.
  However, those in the Massachusetts legislature who object to that measure are in favour of civil partnerships. They say that marriage goes too far and civil partnerships are fine and dandy. They are seeking in a referendum in two years' time—which would come into effect in four years' time—to amend the state constitution dealing with marriage to make it clear that marriage, unlike civil partnership, must apply only to men and women and not to same-sex couples. They intend to do that in order to leave in place exactly the same substantial rights for same-sex couples, although it will be civil union or civil partnership instead.
  That is why the situation is wholly stable. If I thought that there were a risk of a challenge in an appeal—for example, to the Supreme Court in the United States or some other jurisdiction—or if I thought that what was being threatened was likely to happen before this Bill became law or there was a change to the legislation, that would be a different matter. Having said all of that, I will not press the amendment further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 206 [The general conditions]:
  [Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 not moved.]
  Clause 208 [The same-sex requirement]:
  [Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved]
  Clause 220 [Meaning of "the court"]:
  [Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
  Clause 222 [Proceedings for presumption of death order]:
  [Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 not moved.]
  Clause 229 [Supplementary provisions relating to recognition of dissolution etc.]:
  [Amendments Nos. 95 to 99 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
  Clause 243 [Civil partners to have unlimited insurable interest in each other]:
  [Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
  Schedule 23 [Social security, child support and tax credits]:
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 103:
  Page 318, line 18, leave out paragraphs 1 to 5.
  The noble Lord said: We now come to Amendment No. 103 with which we may debate Amendment No. 105. If I do not move subsequent amendments, that means I am carefully considering to what extent we should return to them at Third Reading in the light of the unforthcoming response of the Government on various other amendments.
  As far as I can see, this amendment is not affected in any way by the amendments that we carried earlier. Consequently, I hope that we shall get a response from

  1453
  the Minister in reply. Amendment No. 103 is to page 318, line 18 and would leave out paragraphs 1 to 5. More clearly in terms of intention, Amendment No. 105 would insert into the end of line 28 on page 318:
  "The amendments of Child Support Act 1991 … shall not come into effect until all existing cases have been transferred from the old scheme as originally enacted, to the new scheme".
  The Minister and I have debated the Child Support Agency for a long time—at least it seems like a very long time. I have always accepted that the introduction of that Act by the previous government was difficult to implement. When the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 was debated in this House, the Minister and I both agreed that the change from the rather complicated scheme that we had before to a simpler flat-rate scheme should be welcomed. We cooperated in getting those matters through the House.
  However, since we did that in 2000, the situation has been one of almost unmitigated disaster. The new formula was due to be introduced for all new cases from April 2002. However, in March 2002, Alistair Darling, then the Secretary of State, announced in a Statement that the changes were to be delayed. He pointed to problems of the development of the required computer system. On 27 January 2003, Mr Andrew Smith finally announced that a new system was coming into effect, in March 2003. That system finally went live for all new cases—I stress, for all new cases only—in April 2003. The situation has continued until the present time. From a statement made by Mr Doug Smith in July 2003, it seemed clear that it was not likely to come into effect until the spring of next year.
  6 p.m.
  The system is still working very badly. The problem is not with the computer system alone but with staff relationships and the ability of the staff to operate the system. As of September 2003—the last date for which I have managed to find figures—there were some 30,000 cases operating on the new formula and 882,000—nearly 883,000—operating on the original formula.
  I know only too well from my constituents' experience in another place how concerned and emotional those who have to deal with the Child Support Agency become. It is quite extraordinary that we should have seen delays of the kind with which we are faced at present, with regard to the ability of both the computer and the staff to cope.
  I am not suggesting that the inclusion in this arrangement of same-sex couples is going to result in an enormous number of cases. None the less, the situation has not only been bad in the respects that I have mentioned but a huge amount of compensation—something like £12 million—has been paid out as a result of fraud. The whole system, in terms of computers and staff, is obviously under enormous strain. A huge number of those affected by the Child Support Agency have been waiting for a very long time for the matter to be sorted out.
  I am not suggesting that an enormous number of people will be involved as a result of this Bill or that the Bill will greatly affect the problem—except that the staff will have to deal with a quite different set of problems. The problems likely to be involved with child support cases with same-sex couples looking after the child are likely to be ones with which the staff, as of now, are totally unfamiliar. More particularly, those who have been waiting so long for the system to be sorted out, in many cases in very emotional circumstances, will not be at all happy—I was going to say "amused", but that is an understatement—at the fact that, instead of giving priority to sorting out the problems from which we have suffered for so long and to which the Government have clearly not managed to find a solution, the Government are putting more load on the system in terms of the type of case and numbers. Those people will not be at all pleased.
  The priority should be to sort out the system first and then, when we have done that, to turn our attention to cases that may be affected. After all, this Bill will not be enacted or implemented for a considerable time, so that matter should be sorted out before we extend the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 to those who will be affected by this Bill.
  As I said at the beginning of my speech, only those who were originally intended to be affected by the Bill are involved in this matter. The amendments that we carried earlier will not affect the situation that I have described. Therefore I hope that the Minister, if she replies, can accept Amendment No. 105, which seeks to ensure that these matters are introduced on a sensible basis, when the Government have sorted out the horrendous problems with the Child Support Agency. I beg to move.
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, I advise the House that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 104 to 106 inclusive.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not wish to show any discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who I have always found to be extraordinarily courteous, helpful and informed on all social security debates that we have engaged in over many years. However, 1 do not think that this is the right time to go into a general debate about the performance of the Child Support Agency or the current figures. I entirely accept and deeply regret the problems posed by the inadequacy of the computer system, which is not sufficiently robust, in ministerial eyes, to allow us to bring the existing cases, as opposed to new cases, on to the system. We do not disagree about this. As soon as we can, we will do so. However, I do not think that today is an appropriate time to raise this; maybe an Unstarred Question at some time might be appropriate.
  My difficulty is engaging with the noble Lord's amendment because it excludes from child support liability same-sex couples in the way that opposite sex couples would now be liable. The problem is that what counts as a couple for this purpose has been torpedoed by the debate earlier today. We now no longer have a

  1455
  working concept of couple. I must say that I would oppose the amendment anyway, for obvious reasons involving the Child Support Agency. However, I cannot engage in a debate on any aspect of social security that has at its core the concept of a couple because I do not now know whether a couple is, as I understood it, people living together as husband and wife, so to speak, in conventional social security legislation or whether it could be a civil partnership of two brothers or a brother and sister. Given that, I am stuck.
  I absolute do not intend any discourtesy to the noble Lord. I could go into a general discussion on the Child Support Agency but I shall not do so at this late hour. I am happy to do so on some other occasion. We will oppose the amendment. There is no point in taking it further, given that the concept of a couple has now been blown out of the water by the debate earlier today.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I do not understand the point that she is making. As far as the original Bill was concerned, quite clearly the amendment was appropriate. Even if it remains in its amended form, it will still be the case—perhaps even more strongly the case—that the Child Support Agency should not be required to take on the additional burden. If the amendments go through as agreed by your Lordships' House that is even more true. It should not be required to take this on until it has sorted out the other problems. Those who have suffered such long delays feel that they will suffer even longer delays because of the strain put on the CSA. That is not satisfactory. So I do not understand why the noble Baroness was proposing to reject the amendment anyway. Perhaps she can enlighten us in that respect.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry that I do not think I can helpfully add to the answer I have already given.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I do not understand why that is so. The noble Baroness could perfectly well say that in any case the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment. But I have heard no reason why that is so.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this is Report stage and so I do not want to continue this debate. I made it clear that the Government would have been unhappy to accept the amendment even as the Bill stood. Given the complexity of what we now understand by a couple, and therefore responsibility, within social security law, the Government will oppose the amendment if the noble Lord seeks to push it to a Division. But I do not want to continue to elaborate on the points about the concept of a couple and so on, which is at the core of my dilemma in all social security legislation and in all the amendments that we now face.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, we are, as the noble Baroness says, on Report. I will be out of order if I go
  1456
  on jumping up and down any more. I may need to return to this at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 104 to 107 not moved.]
  Lord Higginshad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 108:
  Page 322, line 22, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) to (4).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is covered by subsequent amendments on the Marshalled List which have overtaken it. I think that the amendments that replace it are on the supplementary list. So we will come to those in due course.
  [Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 109 to 125 not moved.]
  Clause 245 [Power to amend enactments relating to pensions]:
  [Amendments Nos. 126 to 129 not moved]
  Schedule 24 [Amendment of certain enactments relating to pensions]:
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Higginshad given his intention to move Amendment No. 129A:
  Page 343, line 12, leave out paragraph 1.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the four amendments in this group are the ones to which I referred a moment ago. They cover a series of changes in pension arrangements. It seemed helpful to divide them up rather than to take them en bloc, which would have been the effect of Amendment No. 108 that I did not move.
  I am considering very carefully, in the light of the various statements made by the Government, whether it would be fruitful to raise the matter at this stage. I suspect that we will merely get the same stonewalling answer. The noble Baroness has indicated that that is so. So it seems pointless, I regret to say, to go on with this rather strange procedure—which I cannot recall in my entire parliamentary life of some 40 years of experience.
  No doubt it will be appropriate to reconsider these points, to see to what extent it is valid for the Government to say they cannot reply. In some of the cases in which they have said that previously, I suspect that it is not the case. So I may well wish to return to the amendments on Third Reading.
  [Amendment No. 129A not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 129B to 131 not moved.]
  Clause 250 [Community obligations and civil partners]:
  [Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 not moved.]
  Clause 251 [Minor and consequential amendments, repeals and revocations]:
  [Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
  Schedule 26 [Minor and consequential amendments: general]:
  [Amendments Nos. 135 to 169 not moved.]
  Schedule 27 [Consequential amendments: Scotland]:
  [Amendment No. 170 not moved.]
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 171:
  Page 373, line 2, at end insert—
  "In section 16(4) (petitions for recall of sequestration), for "section 41(1)(b)" substitute "sections 41(1)(b) and 41A(1)(b)"."
  The noble Duke said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Amendment No. 171 I should like to speak also to my other amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 173, 175 and 178, although we have in some ways gone past that group.
  Once again I must express great disappointment that the Government do not feel able to move their amendments. I would like to appreciate the effort that the Government and the Civil Service in Scotland have obviously put in to produce full and totally adequate amendments to this part of the Bill. However, I shall speak to my amendments.
  Amendment No. 171 inserts a reference to a new Section 41A(1)(b) into Section 16(4) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. The reason for this is that Paragraph 32 of Schedule 27 to the Bill inserts a new Section 41A into the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. As a result, Section 16(4) of the 1985 Act requires to be amended to refer to the new Section 41A(1)(b).
  Amendment No. 173 inserts into Section 34(7) of the 1985 Act a reference to the provisions of Clause 127 of the Bill. The reason why this is required is that Section 34(7) of the 1985 Act states that that section operates,
  "without prejudice to the operation of section 2 of the Married Women's Policies of Assurance Act (Scotland) 1880 (policy of assurance may be effected in trust for spouse, future spouse and children)".
  As the provisions contained in Clause 128 of the Bill extend Section 2 of the 1880 Act to cover civil partners, this amendment is intended to insert a reference to those provisions into the 1985 Act.
  Amendment No. 176 inserts a reference to civil partners in Section 51(3) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. Section 51(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 makes, inter alia, a loan by a debtor's spouse a postponed debt in terms of that Act. This amendment aims to widen that provision to cover also civil partners.
  Amendment No. 178 would insert a reference to former civil partners into Schedule 1, paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. Paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 sets out rules in relation to claims for aliment and periodical allowance on divorce. This amendment would extend these provisions to cover former civil partners following dissolution of that partnership. I beg to move.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as this is the last group of amendments, I do not want to add to what my noble friend the Duke of Montrose has just said, but to say that, like my noble friend Lord Higgins, in the 30 years that I have been in Parliament I have never experienced an afternoon like the one we have had today. The Government's response to the defeat,
  1458
  which, admittedly, they clearly did not expect, was highly unsatisfactory. I refer to their refusal even to explain what their amendments meant, even when there was a great deal of sympathy both for the Bill generally—as was known from the earlier stages of the Bill—and for the particular amendment under debate. The fact that they refused even to explain what they were doing on some but not all of the amendments was highly unsatisfactory.
  There has been no attempt to filibuster. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, accused us of that a little earlier but I think I am right in saying that he made about the longest speech of anyone in the course of the whole discussion. That is not unusual, but he did so today.
  I remind the House that the amendment which was carried earlier was carried entirely on a free vote, at any rate so far as my party was concerned. So far as I know, that applied to other parties. I believe I am right in saying that noble Lords of different parties went through different Lobbies. I have not studied the Division List in detail as yet but there were noble Lords from different parties in different Lobbies.
  Lord Alli: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not accept that following what happened this morning with the relevant amendment, on which the House rightly voted as it saw fit, for those of us who sat through Grand Committee the concept of the Civil Partnership Bill had been fundamentally changed? Therefore, all the amendments that we were discussing, and had discussed in Grand Committee, gained wider ramifications that made every single one of them incompatible with the broader scope of the Bill. Does the noble Lord accept that the Government have allowed proceedings to move forward—we have had discussions on a whole range of issues—but that the amendments that the noble Lord was seeking to discuss seem to be inappropriate given the change in circumstances and scope of the Bill?
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord was intervening in my speech or making his own. However, from the way he expressed himself, I believe that he was intervening in my speech.
  Lord Alli: My Lords, for clarity, I was intervening in the noble Lord's speech; I was not making my own.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that clear. I understand the point that the noble Lord made from his own point of view, but I certainly do not think that it applies to anything like all the amendments that we have discussed this afternoon. In any case, I see no reason why the Government could not have explained what various amendments would have meant had the Bill not been amended. That would have been helpful to the House and no doubt to the discussion of the Bill, which will proceed both in this place and in another place.
  The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, in the light of the previous contribution, I am making my

  1459
  own speech. I offer it as we helpfully become reflective on this extraordinary afternoon—or so I thought at the start of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
  When the noble Lord, Lord Lester, brought forward his own Civil Partnerships Bill in January two and a half years ago, I made the point that some of us who were not at all happy with it might have been markedly happier had it looked at a much smaller number of people, been a much smaller Bill, and looked at a number of the clearest points where there were manifest injustices and sources of real distress and anxiety. That advice has not been followed by the process that has brought us to this point.
  One plank of what the Government and others have said is that responsibility for the position in which we find ourselves lies with those who were in the majority this afternoon. However, a significant element of responsibility seems to lie on those responsible for the character of the Bill. The Bill has become enormous and spread because of the intention—perhaps as a result of a particular element of human rights legislation—to replicate painstakingly everything there might be concerning marriage. The position in which the Government have found themselves largely stems from that astonishing exhaustiveness of the Bill.
  Might there not be a question of remembering the advice that some of us gave two and a half years ago—that the Government might more easily get a much more straightforward Bill through, one that addresses some of the most critically and obviously distressing, disadvantaging and, frankly, wrong elements of the present system? If it is the responsibility of the majority this afternoon, which I question, it is not simply our responsibility, because the whole character of the Bill—its scale, shape and exhaustive replication—has got us where we are.
  Lord Roper: My Lords, I am not speaking to respond to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about the contribution of my noble friend Lord Lester to Amendment No. 87. However, given that the whole debate on that group took only 15 minutes, it cannot be said that he was speaking at excessive length.
  The situation is very unusual. In my experience in both Houses of this Parliament, I have never known such a radical change to a piece of legislation; it may be an unprecedented change. It would probably have misled the House had the Government attempted to use material prepared to discuss amendments that it was assumed would be considered in a different context. It is right that that material was not put on record. The Government have behaved in the correct manner in this extraordinarily unusual situation. However, I hope that we will have an opportunity at a later stage—when amendments come back from the Commons—to give amendments the consideration that we have not been able to give them this afternoon.
  The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I want to add a word or two to the remarks of my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester.
  1460
  Whatever mess we have got ourselves into today, we as a House need to bear two things in mind. First, the Government started this legislation here. It is entirely appropriate that such legislation be started in this House. Therefore, we have to watch how we conduct ourselves, and not hand across to the other place legislation that is clearly in a principled mess. If we do not watch that, the Government might be tempted not to take such a route, which has implications for the practice of this House.
  My second point is that we have to have legislation that is rooted in principle. All those in positions of political responsibility need to consider that, whatever their point of view. There is a variety of points of view on these Benches as well as elsewhere in the House. Given the damage that has been done today there has to be coherence in terms of principle. We have lost that today. I hope that those that are here every day through negotiation will help us to recover the situation.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, like others I deeply regret the situation in which we find ourselves. It was not created by any act of Government; it was a consequence of a vote that was taken earlier today that the Government have to respect and act upon as though it happened. With the best will in the world, what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, seems to suggest is that the Government should respond to amendments as if that vote had not taken place, as though the will of the House had not been declared and as though the Government had not been overturned in a straight debate about the core concept of the Bill, which is, "What is a couple?". That concept of partners living as though they were husband and wife has now been changed radically and fundamentally out of all recognition, as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, said.
  As my noble friend Lord Alli said clearly, in consequence, most of the government amendments and the Government's response to the amendments moved were based on one concept of the Bill, which has now been completely, dramatically and fundamentally changed. If the precepts of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, had been followed we could have been described as being arrogant, as disregarding the view of the House, of ignoring it, of being confident that the Commons would overturn the vote and of pretending that it had never taken place.
  We could not do that. We were in an extremely difficult position. I entirely respect some of the amendments and positions taken by noble Lords opposite—as well as noble Lords on the Bishops' Bench. The Government have tried to act in a clean, straightforward and transparent manner. I hope that we will have an adequate opportunity at a later stage to do what this House does best, which is to scrutinise the Bill carefully. Maybe we will make time to do that at some point in the proceedings, but the situation was created by the vote today. It has fundamentally changed the Bill. We could not act as though that vote had not taken place and therefore we took the most

  1461
  honourable way forward, which was to recognise that fact, expedite the proceedings and allow us, perhaps, at a later stage to have further scrutiny of the Bill.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, before the Minister sits down can I ask her, as a matter of curiosity, whether one of the difficulties that the Government are having with the Bill is that the original Bill was "Sewel-ed" by the Scottish Parliament? Does the fact that we have a different Bill put us in difficulty with the Scottish Parliament? Are we not in a parallel situation to that regarding Northern Ireland, where we wish the devolved governments to have a say, but that we cannot go ahead until they have that say?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we will have to come back to the noble Duke on that. I am not in a position to get my head around all the of implications of the decision that was made by your Lordships earlier.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 172 to 179 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
  Schedule 28 [Repeals and revocations]:
  [Amendments Nos. 181 to 187 not moved.]
  Clause 252 [Extent]:
  [Amendments Nos. 188 to 193 not moved.]
  Clause 253 [Commencement]:
  [Amendments Nos. 194 to 201 not moved.]

Higher Education Bill
Bill returned from the Commons with certain Lords amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement; with a Lords amendment disagreed to with amendments proposed in lieu thereof; with further Lords amendments agreed to with amendments:, and with the remaining Lords amendments agreed to; the Commons amendments and reasons were ordered to be printed.

Constitutional Reform Bill [H.L.]
Bill reported from the Select Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; it was ordered that the Bill be printed as amended.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past six o'clock.

  Northern Ireland Act 1998: Cost of Implementing Section 75
  Northern Ireland Act 1998: Cost of Implementing Section 75
  Iraq: International Criminal Court
  Iraq: International Criminal Court
  Iraq: Civilian Deaths and Injuries
  Iraq: Civilian Deaths and Injuries
  Gaza: Demolition of Houses
  Gaza: Demolition of Houses
  Gibraltar: Tourist Boats
  Gibraltar: Tourist Boats
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  European Arrest Warrant
  European Arrest Warrant
  Deportation: Prisoners
  Deportation: Prisoners
  People Trafficking
  People Trafficking
  Mountain Rescue Teams
  Mountain Rescue Teams
  Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000: Section 2
  Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000: Section 2
  Home Office: Research Contracts
  Home Office: Research Contracts
  Strip Searches: Under-18s
  Strip Searches: Under-18s
  Immigration Detention Centres: Children
  Immigration Detention Centres: Children
  Immigration Service
  Immigration Service
  Yarl's Wood
  Yarl's Wood
  Lindholme Detention Centre
  Lindholme Detention Centre
  Iraq: Interrogation Techniques
  Iraq: Interrogation Techniques
  Iraq: Prisoners Captured by British Forces
  Iraq: Prisoners Captured by British Forces
  MoD and Environmental Tectonics Corporation
  MoD and Environmental Tectonics Corporation
  Iraq: Depleted Uranium
  Iraq: Depleted Uranium
  Skipton Fund
  Skipton Fund
  Chronic Skin Diseases
  Chronic Skin Diseases
  Copper
  Copper
  Hazardous Waste
  Hazardous Waste
  Organic Crops: Pesticide Residues
  Organic Crops: Pesticide Residues

  Northern Ireland Strategic Investment Board: Report and Accounts 2003–04
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement:

  Today I have placed in the Libraries of the House copies of the report and accounts 2003–04 of the Strategic Investment Board for Northern Ireland.

  Army Base Repair Organisation: Key Targets 2004–05
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The following key targets have been set for the Army Base Repair Organisation for financial year 2004–05.

  Key Target

  Details

  Target

  KT 1—Financial Performance—Return on Capital Employed (ROCE).

  The measurement of ABRO's ROCE.

  To achieve a return, averaged over the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, of at least 3.5 per cent.

  KT2—Delivery Performance.

  The measurement of revenue projection.

  To complete delivery of 100 per cent of the planned revenue projection (£150 million) in FY 2004–05, and in each of the next three years.

  KT3—Business Systems

  The measurement of the introduction and operation of TABS and the imperative to detach from the current supply system.

  To introduce and have operational the ABRO Business System (TABS) and to have detached from the ESPPA supply system by 31 March 2005.

  KT4—Efficiency

  The measurement of the reduction in price of ABRO output.

  To reduce the average equipment repair price, across the whole programme, by 20 per cent against the 2002–03 baseline.

  KT5—Winning Work

  The measurement of ABRO winning work.

  To maintain a closing order book of at least £80 million for FY 2004–05, and to maintain this level for the next three years.

  Elder Abuse
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Community (Dr Stephen Ladyman) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  The Government's response to the Health Committee's Second Report of Session 2003–04 on elder abuse, Cm 6270, has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Continuing Care
  Lord Warner
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Community (Dr Stephen Ladyman) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  I regret that the information I provided in my Written Statement of 22 June contained an error in line 23 of the table, the entry for South Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority. Where it read 138 cases eligible for recompense, it should have said 69; and where it read 232 investigations completed, it should have said 163. The corrected data are in the table.

  SHA Name

  Number of cases eligible of recompense

  Investigations completed

  Investigations under way

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire SHA

  0

  281

  370

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire SHA

  34

  102

  110

  Essex SHA

  10

  146

  26

  North West London SHA

  10

  181

  191

  North Central London SHA

  8

  64

  61

  North East London SHA

  0

  169

  11

  South East London SHA

  60

  183

  90

  South West London SHA

  62

  194

  21

  Northumberland, Tyne & Wear SHA

  27

  126

  172

  County Durham and Tees Valley SHA

  10

  48

  178

  North & East Yorkshire & Lincs SHA

  29

  266

  93

  West Yorkshire SHA

  25

  130

  219

  Cumbria and Lancashire SHA

  15

  154

  186

  Greater Manchester SHA

  5

  102

  240

  Cheshire & Merseyside SHA

  107

  774

  422

  Thames Valley SHA

  4

  181

  202

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight SHA

  30

  386

  121

  Kent and Medway SHA

  24

  186

  44

  Surrey and Sussex SHA

  5

  15

  860

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA

  43

  612

  349

  WS 67

  SHA Name

  Number of cases eligible for recompense

  Investigations completed

  Investigations under way

  South West Peninsula SHA

  25

  433

  120

  Dorset and Somerset SHA

  14

  448

  467

  South Yorkshire SHA

  69

  163

  78

  Trent SHA

  0

  236

  79

  Leics, Northants and Rutland SHA

  29

  202

  22

  WS 68

  SHA Name

  Number of cases eligible for recompense

  Investigations completed

  Investigations under way

  Shropshire and Staffordshire SHA

  38

  412

  19

  Birmingham and the Black Country SHA

  10

  213

  73

  West Midlands South SHA

  8

  237

  187

  Total—England

  770

  6,713

  5,011