Sitting of 1 March 2004

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

    Arctic Convoys
    Mr. Graham Allen: What medals have been awarded to British citizens who served on the Arctic convoys. [156729]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Ivor Caplin): Two campaign medals were awarded to those who saw service in the Arctic convoys. The qualifying criteria for the campaign medals awarded after the second world war were published in Command Paper 6633 in May 1945, and subsequently modified by Command Paper 6833 in June 1946. Both awards specifically stated that service on the convoys to north Russia was to be marked by the award of the Atlantic star in acknowledgement of their exemplary conduct.
    In addition, in 1994, on the advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Her Majesty the Queen granted permission for surviving veterans of the Arctic convoys to accept and wear the Russian 40th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War medal, which was instituted in 1985.
    Mr. Allen: I thank the Front-Bench team, the Prime Minister and Members in all parts of the House for the recognition of the Suez veterans a few months ago, which was much appreciated by them and showed that it is possible to recognise veterans even at such a late stage.
    Given that it is at least 50 years since the last serious discussion of this issue by the Ministry of Defence, will my hon. Friend have another look at it? There are very few surviving veterans who served our country on the Arctic convoys. As he said, the Russian Government have awarded them a specific medal. I hope that he will bear in mind the feelings of Members in all parts of the House and consider the matter again while a few of those heroes still survive.
    Mr. Caplin: I assure my hon. Friend that the contemporary documentation has been looked at again. The evidence confirms that the HD committee—the
    596
    Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals—of the day did not overlook the convoys to Russia; indeed, the Command Papers specifically mention service in the Arctic. Like my hon. Friend and all other Members, we recognise the bravery of those who served on the convoys. Their service is recognised and covered by the award of the Atlantic star.
    Bob Spink: My father was an Arctic convoy veteran. He received the Russian medal in the mid-1990s, and wore it with great pride until he died a few years ago. He would be the first to want me to stand up in the House and say that there were very special circumstances on the convoys, and that the Government should now find it in their heart to remember and recognise those who gave such valiant service to this country.
    Mr. Caplin: We do exactly that through the award of the Atlantic star. I recognise the bravery of the hon. Gentleman's father, but the award of the Atlantic star is the right one according to the Command Papers published for the House in the 1940s.

    D-Day
    Mr. Bill Tynan: What plans his Department has to mark the 60th anniversary of D-day. [156730]
    Mr. Dave Watts: What plans his Department has to mark the 60th anniversary of D-day. [156736]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Ivor Caplin): The Government recognise the importance of all the major events that led up to the end of the second world war, and in particular the continued interest and importance of the D-day landings. Our plans to mark those events include the recently launched "Veterans Reunited" programme. With the aid of lottery funding, it will involve all generations of UK residents in commemorating the events, both overseas and here at home.
    I can also confirm that Her Majesty the Queen, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and senior members of the armed forces will attend the main D-day commemorative events organised by the French Government at Arromanches on 6 June. We will also send military bands and other service detachments.
    Mr. Tynan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the establishment of lottery funding for "Heroes Return". I know that the veterans in Hamilton, South welcome this vital opportunity to receive financial support. There is, however, concern about what I understand to be a 21 March deadline for application to the French authorities for identity passes. A constituent who contacted me did not know about the deadline until he made his application. Will my hon. Friend ensure that publicity is given to the deadline, and that if by any chance people do not manage to meet it, everything is done to ensure that they participate in the events?
    Mr. Caplin: The deadline applies only to the event on Sunday 6 June; no other events are affected. I can also reassure my hon. Friend that if his constituent telephones the Veterans Agency freephone number, 0800 169 2277, he will be given all the help he needs.
    Mr. Watts: I welcome today's announcement, but may I ask whether the Minister will be organising events to celebrate VE-day and VJ-day? If so, will he ensure that they take place nationwide? Many of those involved in the original events are getting old, and need to celebrate in their localities. Will there be events in places such as Merseyside?
    Mr. Caplin: I am pleased to announce to the House that there will be a national celebration and commemoration of VE-day and VJ-day on Sunday 10 July 2005. The main event in London will be led by Her Majesty the Queen, but I greatly hope that other towns and cities across the UK, including my hon. Friend's constituency, will stage their own events on that day.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Following the Adjournment debate last week, will the Minister tell the House how many of the estimated 10,000 surviving Normandy veterans expressed an interest in or plan to attend the commemoration services and parades in France during the first week of June?
    Mr. Caplin: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I used the figure 5,000 to 10,000 in last week's Adjournment debate—we do not have a more precise figure—but one of the reasons for asking travel operators to register their tour parties with the Veterans Agency is to ascertain a fuller picture. Considerable consultation and discussion with the Normandy Veterans Association, with which the hon. Gentleman is involved, has taken place. The most recent meeting with its chairman took place in France on 21, 22 and 23 January this year.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I hope that, in view of the Minister's substantive first answer, it is in order to say that when the extremely welcome VJ-day celebrations take place, prominence should be given to the Indian Army. It was, after all, the largest volunteer force in history and largely broke the back of the Japanese on land. I have an interest to declare in that my grandfather served in it.
    Mr. Caplin: I am certainly prepared to accept bids today in respect of who should take part on 10 July, but every consideration will be given to the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: I thank the Minister for announcing in advance the VE-day and VJ-day celebrations next year, and we look forward to Her Majesty's Government being represented then by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
    The Government's organisation of what is likely to be the last D-day commemoration—it will be attended by a significant number of survivors—has, according to the spokesman for the Normandy Veterans Association
    598
    today, been lamentable. Originally, the Government were going to send one junior Minister and one military band, but now they have been shamed into sending the Prime Minister and four bands. I have been told today by Leslie Frost, the chairman of the Normandy Veterans Association, that there is complete confusion about who is supposed to be organising the church service at Bayeux on the Sunday. Since nothing is more likely to sour the event than individuals who liberated Europe being turned away for lack of photo ID, will the Minister ensure that the Normandy Veterans Association has all the information for dissemination to its branches and that it will not simply be left to people themselves to find out the number of the Veterans Agency?
    Mr. Caplin: It is always good to start on a Monday afternoon with a joke, and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has certainly obliged. I shall tell the House what is truly lamentable—the comments that he just made about the organisation for commemorating Normandy this year. We have made genuine arrangements with the Royal British Legion, the Normandy Veterans Association and others who will travel independently to ensure that people are secure, safe and able to visit the events that they want to attend. That includes the Bayeux church service, which I will attend.

    Regimental Museums
    Mr. David Chaytor: What level of financial support his Department allocated to regimental museums in the last three financial years; and what plans he has to increase such support. [156731]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Ivor Caplin): The Ministry of Defence funds staff costs of those military museums that are associated with the regiments and corps of the Army. In addition, we provide property maintenance, rates and utility costs for museums within MOD premises. As those costs are not separately identified, I am not in a position to provide a figure for the overall level of financial support. There are, however, no current plans to increase the funding for regimental museums.
    Mr. Chaytor: I should like to tell the Minister about the excellent work done by everyone associated with the Lancashire Fusiliers regimental museum in my constituency. I should also like to mention the museum's ambitious expansion plans. It is due to move to more central and more accessible premises in the near future. I ask him, as we move to the difficult and final stage of the negotiations, to take a personal interest in the project, so that the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and the people of Bury can have a museum of which they can be proud.
    Mr. Caplin: I am pleased to congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts to ensure that that museum is developed. I understand that a grant of £50,000 has been provided by the Heritage Lottery Fund in anticipation

    599
    of a larger grant. I am always interested to know about the progress that we are making on regimental museums, and when I am next in the north-west, I shall give him the chance to show me around the museum in his constituency.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Minister might remember that I wrote to him recently about the Medloc train, which was used to transport soldiers going home on leave e across Europe during the second world war, and which many of them remember very fondly. Will he reconsider his decision not to provide funds for the National Army Museum to preserve a small part of that train, perhaps its restaurant car, as a memorial of that splendid effort during the second world war?
    Mr. Caplin: The National Army Museum, as the hon. Lady well knows, is a royal charter body and a registered charity that already receives the bulk of its running costs, including a purchase grant, via a grant in aid from the Ministry of Defence. Collections policy, however, is a matter for and responsibility of the museum's council. From the number of letters that I have signed on the matter, I am aware of the Medloc campaign on that carriage, in which hon. Members of both Houses have been involved. I have spoken to the museum, which advises me that it has done its best to respond constructively, but that it does not want to acquire the carriage for its collection or to display it in the National Army Museum.
    Mr. George Foulkes: I congratulate the Minister on his superb answers, not only on museums but on anniversaries and Arctic convoys. I know that he and I would be ruled out of order if we were to discuss Tory policies, but let us just suppose that our Chancellor contemplated adopting the policies of the shadow Chancellor. Would all these matters not be put in jeopardy?
    Mr. Caplin: I always welcome my right hon. Friend's contribution, and I certainly share his views on the shadow Chancellor's policies.
    Mr. Robert Key: The museum of the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment, the finest regimental museum in the country, receives no direct financial assistance from the Ministry of Defence but has benefited from the Treasury's gift aid scheme. However, that is about to be removed from museums, including regimental museums. What representations has the Minister made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the impact on regimental museums of that mingy treatment? If he has made none, will he do so?
    Mr. Caplin: I thought that gift aid was a policy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced by the Labour Government. However, I shall certainly look at the point that the hon. Gentleman makes on regimental museums.

  Iraq
  Claire Ward: What recent steps the Department has taken to assist the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. [156732]
  Mrs. Joan Humble: What steps the Department has taken to assist the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. [156738]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Our principal role in Iraq is to help to provide the conditions for reconstruction. A crucial aspect of that involves developing Iraq's own security capabilities. That is why I announced last December the deployment of an additional infantry battalion and two additional platoons of Royal Military Police to Iraq. They and other experts are helping to train Iraqis in modern, accountable security methods that respect human rights and international law. We aim to give the Iraqis the ability to defend their country against terror, violence and crime. Over 100,000 Iraqi security personnel are now operating across the country.
  We also contribute directly to reconstruction. The armed forces, working with the Department for International Development, with the coalition provisional authority and with Iraqis, have opened supply routes such as the rail link between Basra and Umm Qasr, repaired key bridges and strengthened vital transport links. They have restored clean water provision to Umm Qasr and most of Basra, and helped to refurbish infrastructure, hospitals and schools.
  Claire Ward: Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that he has no proposals to reduce the funding available to our military while they are in Iraq reconstructing essential facilities? Will he prioritise the reconnection of electricity and water supplies, which are essential for the Iraqi people?
  Mr. Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I look forward to the Conservatives offering a similar assurance. This Government's current budget for defence represents the largest planned increase in defence spending in more than 20 years, in stark contrast to the cuts proposed by the shadow Chancellor, of which the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) apparently had no notice at all. So far as other reconstruction projects are concerned, I expect the British armed forces to continue their excellent work in providing basic essentials to the people of southern Iraq. They do that job with extreme professionalism—a professionalism that would be likely to be damaged by the cuts proposed by the Conservatives.
  Mrs. Humble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, along with other Lancashire Members, I met representatives of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment when it returned from Basra last year? We learned that it had been involved in reconstructing 30 local schools and two orphanages, that it had worked to train the local police support unit in Basra, that it had maintained fuel supplies and much more. Will he therefore join me

  601
  in congratulating the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, in particular, and the other units that have been doing such vital work in reconstructing Iraq?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I was able to see for myself the excellent work done by the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. It has made a significant contribution to the stability of Basra, where it is involved in patrolling the city as well as planning and organising the training of the Basra police support unit, as my hon. Friend mentioned. It is also practically engaged in a number of reconstruction projects on the ground.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: While I of course acknowledge the excellent work done by our forces in the reconstruction of Iraq, does the Secretary of State agree that continuing concerns at home about the legality of the action in Iraq must be affecting the morale of the forces involved in that work? Will he tell the House precisely whether he knew of the anxieties of the chiefs of staff about the legality of the conflict before it began? Did he pass those concerns on to the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Hoon: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I much prefer to rely on the words of the then Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Boyce—as he is now—when he made it plain over the weekend that he had had none of the doubts apparently reported in the newspapers. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Liberal Democrats prefer to believe the bad news that they read in the newspapers rather than the good news from members of our armed forces.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: The whole House appreciates the heroic work of British personnel engaged in the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. Nevertheless, the Government have some questions to answer about the slow preparation for such an eventuality. Does the Secretary of State believe that the failure in planning was due to the delay in obtaining a definitive opinion on the legality of war from the Attorney-General? The Ministry of Defence had to work closely with the Department for International Development, and it still does. Does the Secretary of State believe that the then Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), was dilatory in her preparations for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq because of her doubts about the Attorney-General's opinion?
  Mr. Hoon: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman believes that cutting £1.5 billion from the defence budget would help preparations, because that is his policy—[Interruption.] That is what he comes to the House believing in. As recently as 6 January, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex said:
  "you can't do defence on the cheap."
  He also said that he would be "lobbying hard" to secure more funds for defence. We now know the result of his lobbying. We know that he has lobbied so successfully that the shadow Chancellor proposes to cut £1.5 billion from defence—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker:Order. I call Shona McIsaac.

  Heroes Return
  Shona Mclsaac: If he will make
  a statement on "Heroes Return". [1156733]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Ivor Caplin): "Heroes Return" is the central element of the New Opportunities Fund's "Veterans Reunited" programme to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war. This lottery-funded programme will help to ensure that all generations of United Kingdom residents can commemorate the 60th anniversary together, with events both at home and abroad, and is part of wider cross-government work involving the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Department for Education and Skills.
  Shona Mclsaac: It is clear from other questions that have been asked in the House today that all hon. Members welcome this excellent initiative, which is proving very popular with our veterans. Given its popularity, will my hon. Friend consider extending the scheme to the veterans of other conflicts, such as the Korean war or Suez, so that our veterans could go there and wear their medals with pride?
  Mr. Caplin: "Heroes Return" is a two-year, lottery-funded programme commemorating the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war. I know of the importance of Korea to hon. Members and to the British Korean Veterans Association, members of which I visited at the arboretum recently; I was also with a number of veterans in Korea last summer. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's bid as the first for an extension to the scheme. I will have to consider it and talk to the lottery operator when the time is right.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Lottery grants are often controversial, but the Minister will agree that this one will achieve universal acclaim across the Chamber and throughout the country. In considering the grants made and the representations given at veterans' events, will he bear it in mind that, two days before the heroes return to Normandy this June, other heroes will be returning to Rome because it will be the 60th anniversary of its liberation? Will he bear it in mind that those who are entitled today to wear the Italy star belong to a force that lost 45,000 British and Commonwealth servicemen'? Is there any prospect of a royal and prime ministerial presence in Rome two days before the same dignitaries go to Normandy?
  Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on the last point. However, in April, it will be the 60th anniversary of Kohima in Burma, and in May, it will be the 60th anniversary of Monte Cassino. Both events take place before the D-day commemoration. It is important to emphasise that "Heroes Return" is about all events worldwide and does not support only veterans going to events or their carers. It is also an educational project that allows veterans to

  603
  commit to regaling their stories and legacy to young people in our society so that we have a living history of the great sacrifices many of them made.
  Andrew Mackinlay rose—
  Mr. Speaker:Andrew Mackay.[Laughter.]
  Andrew Mackinlay: I am the good-looking one.
  Will the Minister consider how the many thousands of volunteers from the Republic of Ireland who served in the British armed forces during the war and those of whom Winston Churchill made special mention in his "Victory in Europe" broadcast can be included in the scheme? There were thousands of them, they were outstanding and every single one of them was a volunteer. They need to be included in "Heroes Return", in the absence of an Irish delegation here today.
  Mr. Caplin: I never for one moment thought that my hon. Friend was the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay).
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: He has not been under the sun lamp.
  Mr. Caplin: I shall leave that comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) alone, Mr. Speaker.
  The lottery money amounts to £10 million and, under the rules of the national lottery agreed by this House, we can only give grants to UK citizens. Those veterans resident in Northern Ireland will qualify. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that those resident in the Republic will qualify unless they are UK citizens.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement on the future of the aircraft carrier programme. [156734]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence(Mr. Adam Ingram): The future carrier programme is currently in stage 3 of the assessment phase. Design work is progressing, as are discussions on the alliance strategy, which remains our preferred approach to delivering the capability to our time and cost targets. Our target in-service dates remain 2012 and 2015.
  Mr. Syms: There has been a lot of debate, certainly in the press, about the size, capability and cost of this welcome project. Originally, British Aerospace and the Ministry of Defence hoped to agree a firm design for the project by this April. Is the Minister holding to that April date or will it be missed?
  Mr. Ingram: Work is progressing on the assessment phase and is due to continue until spring this year. At that point, Ministers will consider proposals on the overall CVF—carrier vessel future—programme and make a decision on when to proceed to the next phases, demonstration and manufacturing, of the project.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the two carriers not only add to the defence capacity of the United Kingdom but will also give a great boost to the regional economies in areas such as the north-east? Can he give the House an assurance that those orders will not be cut, as is being suggested in some quarters of the Opposition?
  Mr. Ingram: We have no plans to cut the programme. My hon. Friend may be referring to others who are developing programmes that would have such an implication were they ever to get into power. A cut of £1.5 billion for defence might mean only one aircraft carrier, but if there were two carriers, such a cut would mean fewer aircraft or a smaller Army; it is not for me to answer on what others are saying about their future programme. We shall continue with the project and my hon. Friend is right that it means a lot for the north-east, the Clyde and the rest of the UK shipbuilding industry.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not the programme crucial to the fleet, which already faces a grievous air defence gap between the elimination of the Sea Harriers from service in about 2005 and the earliest date for entry into service of carrier—embarked joint strike fighters in 2012? Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no further slippage either in defining the design or in the time scale for entry into service? If that were to occur, he would open up the fleet to exceptional vulnerability.
  Mr. Ingram: We have had a lot of debate about the Sea Harriers and it has been explained time and again why that military judgment was made. The upgrade would have been very expensive and there were also technical difficulties. On protection of the fleet, we have also said that the highest likelihood is that we would always be in coalition with our allies, so we should have that combined defence. The hon. Gentleman makes another important point, which is about the future size of the fleet. Perhaps he should ask the shadow Chancellor about the implications for defence if £1.5 billion were cut from defence expenditure. There is an old adage, "If the enemy isn't in front of you, he's behind you." The hon. Gentleman's enemy is sitting in front of him.
  Mr. Brian Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that no progress will he made on the construction of that programme until. before it goes to the gateway, every risk reduction strategy has been developed, it meets the criteria set down under smart acquisition and it is not in danger of becoming another legacy project, similar to those we inherited from the previous Administration, which went over-time and over-cost?
  Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to ensure that we do everything we can to reduce risk in the programme, but of course, we are facing inherited programmes where such sophisticated planning was not undertaken early enough. The Government have learned lessons from that and we shall do everything we can to ensure that those elements of the project are adhered to. My hon. Friend is right to raise the matter as he did.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to see the Secretary of State back and in such good form after his political near-death experience? Can the Minister assure the House that the main gate approval date for the future carrier programme will not slip further? When will he actually be able to make an announcement on the programme and will agreement with the contractors be reached by April?
  Mr. Ingram: I should welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box; we had a sweep running on whether he would turn up to ask a question as he is clearly embarrassed by his non-involvement in the development of his party's future spending programmes, if the Conservatives were ever to get into power.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the future of the carrier programme. I set it out in my answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). The in-service date is still as set down and, as I said in answer to a previous question, we have to ensure that we are smart and are very specific about the way in which we develop the programme. Every announcement on the details of the next phase of the project will be made on time, when we are ready to give the information. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) should not expect anything other than that from us.
  Mr. Soames: I thank the Minister for his concern for my welfare, but Conservative Members are entirely satisfied with the shadow Chancellor's robust and assured commitment to defence.
  Is the Minister aware that any delay, leaving this country with no aircraft carriers at all in the early years of the next decade, will result in a serious gap in our expeditionary capability?
  Mr. Ingram: That obviously has to be worked against, which is why we have a decommissioning timetable for the three current carriers that is consistent with the in-service date of the new carriers. No one can predict with certainty 10 years ahead, but the reality is that the programme will deliver what we have already announced and improve immeasurably this country's expeditionary war-fighting resources.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his and the Government's commitment to the two carriers, but will he assure me that he will not rule out different options for different types of aircraft using this platform around the world? Will he keep the options open for the future?
  Mr. Ingram: I suspect that my hon. Friend is asking about the modernisation of Typhoon. We have already ruled that out and have no plans to change our mind.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement on the recruitment and retention of Defence Medical Services staff. [156735]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Ivor Caplin): I am pleased to say that recruitment to the Defence Medical Services remains in line with our expectations, and with anticipated better retention than for some years. Over the next four years, an increasing number of consultants and nurses will complete training, which will help to alleviate some of the shortages that have been experienced in the past. Retention of experienced medical personnel, especially in key specialist areas, remains the focus of management action, and we recognise that both pay and non-pay measures have a part to play in supporting the future development of the Defence Medical Services, which did, and continue to do, a first-class job in the Gulf for our armed forces.
  Mr. Viggers: Will the Minister confirm that the main conclusion of the Lawrence committee in 1998 was that the Defence Medical Services should move from the Royal Hospital Haslar to a new centre that was later identified as a 22-acre site at Selly Oak, Birmingham? Will he confirm that £200 million was allocated to fund the new centre, but that has now been withdrawn? Does that not effectively mean the collapse of the strategy set out by the Lawrence committee? Will he review that committee's decision, because my constituents and many others in the Defence Medical Services cannot believe that the Government intend to close the superb facilities at the Royal Hospital Haslar?
  Mr. Caplin: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes considerable interest in the se matters. In fact, I think that he was a member of the Select Committee in the 1992 to 1997 Parliament that dealt with many of the defence medical issues of the time. I know that he recently visited the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham. We remain absolutely committed to delivering a military medical centre of excellence at that establishment in Birmingham. We are pursuing a number of options to ensure that the centre continues to develop to meet the needs of the Defence Medical Services in the future.
  Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend will know that a recent report from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body recognised certain shortages in nursing. How does the Department intend to tackle that? Will he join me in recognising the contribution made by staff a t establishments such as the Royal Naval hospital not only to our forces in the Iraq conflict but to our local communities?
  Mr. Caplin: I certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming the key contribution that defence medical staff make—both abroad and here at home. I very much enjoyed meeting recently some of the members of the Defence Medical Services at Devonport in her constituency. We are going to introduce golden hellos for nurses, especially in specific areas in response to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body's recommendations. Those categories are: operating theatre nurses; accident and emergency; orthopaedic; intensive care nurses; burns; registered mental nurses; and registered general nurses. I believe that that will be an important contribution to the ongoing success of the Defence Medical Services.

  European Defence Capabilities
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: What changes have been introduced regarding the implementation of the EU headline goal; and if he will make a statement. [156739]
  The Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): No changes have been introduced to the implementation of the Helsinki headline goal. A successor to the headline goal with a target date of 2010 is now under discussion. This will capture continued progress on the European capabilities action plan, the development of European rapid response capabilities, and the European security strategy. This goal will place a new emphasis on interoperability, deployability and sustainability as its major themes. We anticipate an announcement being made at the European Council in June.
  Mr. Swayne: I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. What assurance can the Secretary of State give the House regarding any commitment that we might make to the European rapid reaction forces given that defence statistics published last year show a fall in our trained strength of some 12,000, despite increased commitments? Will the reserves make up the gap?
  Mr. Hoon: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not coming to the House to support enthusiastically our efforts to improve European military capabilities, not least because of the cuts in military capabilities that would have to be carried through in the unlikely event of his party being elected to power. Not least of those would be the equivalent of a 40,000 cut in armed forces personnel if a £1.5 billion cut in the defence budget were made. That is a matter that our European—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I expect the Secretary of State to answer the question. That was not a proper answer.
  Mr. Hoon rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mike Gapes.
  Mike Gapes: The Secretary of State referred—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker:Order. If Mr. Skinner has any objection, he can always leave the Chamber. [Interruption.] He can always leave the Chamber; there is no problem.
  Mike Gapes: The Secretary of State referred to the importance of interoperability. In that context, when SFOR in Bosnia is handed over to the EUFOR before the end of this year, will he assure us that that will be able to operate as effectively as SFOR, and that national caveats, which are currently taken by some of our European NATO allies—especially Germany—will not impair the work of our forces and the important security role that they currently play, and will continue to play, in Bosnia?
  Mr. Hoon: If NATO decides that the SFOR mission has been completed successfully, the United Kingdom
  608
  has indicated its willingness to lead a successor EU operation. It is obviously crucial, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, that effective military contributions are made by our EU allies, and those matters are already the subject of discussion.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Secretary of State give me a proper answer? Will he make it absolutely clear that there will not be any wasteful duplication and that there will be no common control of any nuclear assets?
  Mr. Hoon: I can give that assurance. That is precisely why the Government have consistently supported the development of European military capability on a European scale and why it is so difficult for us to understand why the hon. Gentleman's party has so consistently opposed that. It is to avoid the duplication of military capabilities that such a coherent strategy is required.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the warning given by President Putin's special envoy last week against NATO stationing forces in the Baltic states, despite the recent accession of those countries to NATO? Is it likely that that is linked to Russian unwillingness to ratify the conventional armed forces in Europe treaty?
  Mr. Hoon: It is important to emphasise that once the Baltic states fully become members of NATO, they will be in exactly the same position as any other member of NATO as far as the deployment of NATO forces is concerned.

  Defence Industry
  David Cairns: What contributions the defence industry made to the UK economy in the last year for which figures are available. [156740]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence(Mr. Adam Ingram): The UK defence industry is a major contributor to the economic well-being of the UK, employing directly and indirectly around 300,000 people and turning over some £15 billion per annum. It also, of course, plays a vital role in providing our armed forces with the equipment that they need.
  David Cairns: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in my constituency the defence sector is incredibly important, both in terms of those providing capability at Coulport, Faslane and the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service Clyde, and for those who work in defence manufacturing in the upper Clyde shipyards, among other places. Does that not demonstrate the importance of defence spending throughout the country, and highlight the fact that any reduction in that spending would not only put the defence of the realm at risk but have a devastating effect on UK plc?
  Mr. Ingram: Absolutely. My hon. Friend will be only too well aware of the impact that the defence sector has in Scotland. The figure that I gave was for the whole

  609
  United Kingdom, but the Ministry of Defence has placed almost 2,000 contracts in Scotland, with a total value of about £2 billion—slightly more than the amount of the cuts envisaged by the Conservative party.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: As there is a need to maintain an absolutely clear distinction between our competitive, efficient defence producers and the consumer—that is, the taxpayer—why have the
  Government given permission for the retiring head of defence procurement to work, within months, for one of the leading defence contractors?
  Mr. Ingram: Because, I can only assume, that person conformed to the regulations and rules that apply to those in such circumstances.

  Iraq
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: What assessment he has made of the effect on retention of service personnel of the recruitment of British soldiers by security firms in Iraq. [156741]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence(Mr. Adam Ingram): We are not able to assess the effect that the potential recruitment of soldiers by security firms in Iraq will have on retention, because soldiers are not required to provide details of their future employment when they leave the Army. However, serving personnel are normally required to give 12 months' notice of their intention to leave, so we are not expecting such recruitment to have had a significant impact.
  Mr. Dalyell: As it is the considered view of Correlli Barnett, writing in The Spectator this week, and that of many other thoughtful military commentators, that British troops will be stuck in Iraq for years to come, should not some thought be given to the problem of the haemorrhaging of highly skilled trained personnel to the infinitely more lucrative jobs that security firms are offering?
  Mr. Ingram: The reality is somewhat different from what my hon. Friend is trying to present. The current recruitment and retention measures that we have introduced for the regular Army are starting to turn the 15-year downward trend round, and on 1 January this year the whole Army strength stood at 103,840, an increase of about 2,000 personnel in the last 12 months. That seems to contradict those who talk about a haemorrhage out of the armed forces; on current trends, the very reverse seems to be happening.

  Army Recruitment and Retention
  Bob Russell: When he expects to fill all vacancies in the Army. [156742]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Ivor Caplin): The current requirement for the Army is 106,730 personnel. The Department's target is to achieve manning balance by the end of 2005 and to maintain it thereafter.
  Bob Russell:I thank the Minister for that answer, because if it is true, this will be the first time for many
  610
  years that any Government have been able to fill all the places that the Army requires. With that in mind, does the Minister agree that, considering the footprint of the regiments of the British Army and their natural recruitment areas, one way of the filling the gap would be to enable regiments that currently recruit at full strength to form an additional battalion? The Minister will be aware that the nine counties that recruit into the Royal Anglian Regiment could comfortably fill all the places that a reinstated 3rd Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment would provide. Will he therefore look into the possibility of reinstating that battalion?
  Mr. Caplin: I have to put the hon. Gentleman right about the Royal Anglian Regiment, because both its battalions are now slightly under strength, although that does not affect their ability to undertake their current roles. We expect both battalions to reach their establishment in the near future, once personnel currently undergoing basic training are incorporated into the regular Army. As for the future, we made our plans for future Army structures clear in the defence White Paper.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: But may I have an assurance that there will be no forced amalgamations of regiments that fully recruit up to strength? My hon. Friend paid tribute to the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, which has always fully recruited. It would be a tragedy if that regiment were amalgamated yet again.
  Mr. Caplin: Obviously we are considering all the options that were before the House in the defence White Paper. I understand that a debate on the White Paper was asked for at business questions last week, and no doubt we will discuss it shortly. Proper consideration and debate of many of the issues will be carried out then. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that if changes are needed, hon. Members will be consulted before they come about.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Many Opposition Members are concerned at the apparent complacency of Government Front Benchers when it comes to manning figures. Not only did we hear about the undermanning of the Territorial Army in response to my question last Defence Question Time but we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) today about the serious undermanning in Defence Medical Services. We now hear that the armed forces are undermanned by up to 5,000. Is it not time that the Government took those matters more seriously and came up with new initiatives to plug the gaps?
  Mr. Caplin: This Government are certainly producing new initiatives, in particular in relation to the Defence Medical Services. The Defence Committee's third report "Defence Medical Services", published in February 1997—the hon. Gentleman was a member of that Committee-says:
  "We conclude that staff shortages in the Defence Medical Services are so serious that it is not clear whether it will recover."
  Under this Government, with the innovations that we made, the Defence Medical Services is recovering and our retention is good. That will always be the case for our armed forces. After a 15-year downward trend, retention is on an upward trend for the first time.

  Service Personnel (Job-finding Support)
  John Robertson: What steps his Department his taking to help servicemen and women in moving from the armed forces to civilian occupations. [156743]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Ivor Caplin): Those servicemen and women who have currently served at least three years in the armed forces are eligible for job-finding support when they leave. This support is provided under the career transition partnership contract placed by the Ministry of Defence in 1998. RFEA Ltd.—the regular forces employment agency—and the officers' association are also involved with much of the job-finding work under the career transition partnership contract. While all discharged personnel remain on the career transition partnership's books, for two years after discharge, the RFEA and officers association offer ex-service personnel support for the rest of their working careers.
  John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but does he remember that on Second Reading of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill he told the House that nine out of 10 armed servicemen and women found employment on leaving? That means that 10 per cent.—well above the national average for unemployment—do not get jobs. Does he agree that that is not good enough? Will he assure me that the Government will do their best to find jobs for that 10 per cent. of men and women who fight for their country on a daily basis?
  Mr. Caplin: I certainly share my hon. Friend's concerns. Do I remember the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill? Of course I do; it is fresh in my memory, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) will recognise.
  As I said, although only service leavers who have served at least three years are eligible for resettlement provision, from 1 April the early service leavers initiative will be introduced into the new contract for career transition partnerships for all members of our armed forces.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: First, I suggest that the Under-Secretary tell the Secretary of State's special advisers to use a formulation other than
  "What steps his Department taking"
  for the handout questions, because it is a little obvious. Secondly, on the small number of veterans who have fallen into, or are in danger of falling into, social exclusion, can he tell the House what proportion that represents?
  Mr. Caplin: I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about in relation to "handout questions".
  The figure that I used before is that 90 per cent. of our armed forces leavers get good employment within six months of leaving the armed forces. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) explained, it is the 10 per cent. who are of considerable
  612
  concern to me as the veterans minister and to the Government as a whole. As I said, we are doing a lot of work on the transition issues that are related to that 10 per cent. by working with the voluntary and other sectors to reduce that number as speedily as possible.

  European Defence Capabilities
  Roger Casale: If he will make a statement on measures to improve defence capabilities of EU member states. [156744]
  The Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The European Union is working on a number of programmes to improve the defence capabilities of member states. These include the European capability action plan, the establishment of a European defence capabilities agency, the development of European rapid response capability including the battlegroups concept and the drafting of a new headline goal. We fully support all these initiatives.
  Roger Casale: I am chairman of the all-party British-Italian parliamentary group, which, along with other hon. Members, has sought to encourage the commitment of successive Italian Governments to standing alongside British troops in peacekeeping missions in areas as diverse as the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq, where losses of troops and police have been sustained. It is clearly in the national interest to build bilateral and multilateral defence co-operation in Europe. Will my right hon. Friend take every possible step to encourage other European countries to increase their spending on defence and their defence capabilities to allow them to work with us on the most important peacekeeping missions?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. The British Government's policy is to ensure that we encourage other countries to develop their military capabilities not only in our bilateral relationships but in our multilateral relationships, which not only benefits autonomous EU operations but is a crucial contribution that European nations can make to NATO.

  Efficiency Saving
  David Taylor: What recent submissions he has received about the potential for efficiency-driven savings in the defence budget; and if he will make a statement. [156745]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence(Mr. Adam Ingram): As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Ministry of Defence spending review 2002 settlement represented the largest sustained increase in defence spending plans for 20 years. That means there will be year-on-year real increases in defence spending plans until at least 2005–06. Nevertheless, the MOD continuously seeks to increase its efficiency. We regularly receive advice, suggestions and submissions on how we might do that, from both within and outside Government.
  David Taylor: When gimlet-eyed management consultants have been tasked by the Government to

  613
  seek efficiency-driven savings elsewhere in the public sector, their recommendations have often been deeply harmful to the quality of service provided. Will the Minister reassure the House that he will never listen to the siren voices of those who would jeopardise the efficiency and quality of our armed forces by implementing cuts that would aggregate to more than £4 million a day?
  Mr. Ingram: I echo that sentiment entirely.
  Mr. Peter Pike: As an ex-Royal Marine, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that multi-functional forces such as the Royal Marines provide best value and that their future will be safeguarded by this Government in the years ahead?
  Mr. Ingram: Last week, I was with the Royal Marines in Norway and saw at first hand the tremendous cold-weather training undertaken by those exceptional soldiers. Some 2,300 Royal Marines are there, 1,500 of whom have never experienced cold-weather training. At the end of their eight-week training period, they will be fighting fit to carry on their tremendous recent work in Afghanistan and Iraq—there is no threat to their future.

  Iraq
  Alistair Burt: What recent assessment he has made of the security of British troops stationed in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [156746]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Force protection has the highest priority for UK forces. Commanders on the ground employ appropriate force protection measures in accordance with threat assessments. The security situation is under constant review and commanders adapt protection measures to reflect changing circumstances.
  Alistair Burt: In order to reassure my constituents serving in Iraq and their relatives, it is surely necessary for the Secretary of State to clear up discrepancies about the recent past. Why did servicemen tell "Channel 4
  614
  News" that, in the face of anticipated attacks from weapons of mass destruction they were given nuclear, biological and chemical protection kits that were routinely incomplete and gas mask filters that were out of date? As that is contrary to assurances that the Secretary of State gave to the House on 6 February 2003, will he clear up the discrepancy, and appreciate how such unresolved discrepancies affect current confidence?
  Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a series of investigations into the difficulties that certain individuals experienced in the course of operations in Iraq. They need to be put in the context of the overall success of the logistic effort found by the National Audit Office and in our own investigations, but obviously we take seriously any of the problems that were highlighted. If we had precise details of the particular circumstances of the individuals in question, we could investigate them properly.

  Denison Barracks
  Mr. David Rendel: If he will make a statement on the future of the Denison barracks. [156748]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Ivor Caplin): A study of the future of the Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency's estate, including Denison barracks, was initiated in 2003. As part of the wider examination of the defence estate, this study remains ongoing.
  Mr. Rendel: Is the Minister aware that there have been a number of rumours flying around my constituency as to what would become of Denison barracks, were the current operations to cease there? Will he assure my constituents that a decision will be taken in the shortest possible time so that the rumours can be laid to rest?
  Mr. Caplin: It may not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I am not aware of those rumours, but I can assure him that we will keep the matter under careful review. If there are to be any changes at Denison barracks, I will make sure that I come and speak to him.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Wednesday, the First Minister in Scotland made a statement to the Scottish Parliament saying that he had reached an agreement with the Home Secretary that would enable overseas graduates at Scottish universities to be allowed to stay in Scotland longer under visa concessions designed to boost Scotland's dwindling population. The effect of that provision would be to introduce a system whereby there would be a change to the immigration rules in Scotland that would not apply across the rest of the United Kingdom. That proposal has not been put to the House in an oral or written statement. I seek your guidance as to the propriety of announcing such a major policy change without the House being informed in any way of what is going on. I may add that the First Minister went on to say that further such changes would be proposed in future, and again no reference has been made by the Home Secretary in the House or elsewhere to the proposals. I seek your guidance.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but Home Office Ministers are present, and I am sure that the point of order will have been heard and note taken.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As chairman of the court of the university of Edinburgh, may I say that this is a very serious matter? With respect, it is not a matter for just one Department, but one that raises deep constitutional issues that must be hammered out in some forum, and not by just a single Minister.
Mr. Speaker: As I said to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), this is not a matter for the Chair. The comments of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will have been heard.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
3.33 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration(Beverley Hughes): I beg to move,
That—

(1)Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Programme Order of 17th December 2003 shall be omitted;

(2)proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be taken at today's sitting in the order shown in the following table, and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.

Table

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Amendments relating to Clauses I and 2,Clause 6,Clause15, Clauses 3 to 5.

1 hour 15 minutes after commencement of proceedings on consideration.

Amendments relating to Clauses 7 to 10.

2 hours 30 minutes after commencement of proceedings on consideration.

Amendments relating to Clause 11, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 12 and 13, Schedule 3, Clause 14,Clauses 16 to 29, Schedule 4, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on consideration.

9p.m.

Third Reading

10 p.m.

I understand that discussions have taken place between the parties concerned and that there is broad agreement with the programme motion. We are all anxious to start the debate on these important matters.
Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill
  [Relevant Document: Second Report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 211-I, on Asylum and Immigration Appeals.]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

  Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill
    Clause 2

      ENTERING UNITED KINGDOM WITHOUT PASSPORT
      3.34 pm
      The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration(Beverley Hughes): I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 2, line 4, leave out from `if' to 'he' in line 5 and insert
      'at a leave or asylum interview'.
      Mr. Speaker:With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 3. in page 2, line 5 leave out 'in the United Kingdom' and insert
      `at a United Kingdom port or airport'.
      No. 1, in page 2, line 5, leave out from 'him' to end of line 7 and insert 'a document which'.
      Government amendment No. 49.
      No. 2, in page 2, line 11 leave out from 'him' to end of line 12 and insert 'a document which'.
      Government amendments Nos. 50 and 51.
      No. 99, in page 2, line 30 at end insert—
      '(4A) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsections (1) and (2) above, and relies on a defence under subsections (3) and (4) above, if the person adduces evidence which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to the matter, the court or jury shall assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 52, 34 and 53.
      No. 101, in page 3, line 11, leave out second `and'.
      No. 100, in page 3, line 14, at end insertߞ
      `and
      `(c) an offence to which section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) applies.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 54 and 55.
      No. 102, in page 3, line 23, at end insert—
      '(11) The Secretary of State shall, before commencement of this section, and thereafter from time to time as he may decide necessary, publish detailed guidance on the interpretation and implementation of section 2 of this Act.
      (12) Guidance issued under subsection (11) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      Beverley Hughes: I shall speak to Government amendments Nos. 48 to 55 and 34, and I intend to resist Opposition amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 99, 100, 101 and 102. We are dealing with clause 2 and the offence of deliberately disposing of or destroying documents.
      I want first to deal with amendment No. 3 and Government amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50, which address the linked matters of confining the clause 2
      618
      offence to ports, finding a better description of when the offence is committed and allowing a period of three days for in-country applicants to produce their documents.
      Concerns were expressed in Committee about the definition of "first interview". Another concern was that someone should not be caught by the offence if, for example, their passport was mistakenly left at home—that was part of the reason why the Opposition tabled their amendments. I have considered those concerns carefully and have sought to address them in Government amendments Nos. 48 to 55. I shall set out briefly what they do and why I tabled them. As I mentioned in our debate on clause 2 in Committee, we expect that the criminal offence will in practice be used most against people who arrive at ports without documents. In those circumstances, there will rarely be an innocent explanation for lack of documentation: for people arriving in-country, however, there may be more reasons why they no longer have appropriate documentation. As was acknowledged in Committee, cases of destruction or disposal of documents by people applying in-country —for example, at the asylum screening unit—should not be excluded from the scope of the offence.
      Members who served on the Committee will recall that I used as an example an issue that we are investigating at the moment. We believe and have evidence to suggest that people already given refugee status in other European countries are using those documents to come in straightforwardly through our channels at port, and then turning up at the asylum screening unit without those documents and claiming asylum. I do not think that any hon. Member would want us to be unable to take action on such behaviour.
      To retain the coverage of both in-country and port claims in the offence, while not penalising people who, for example, have left their passport at home, Government amendment No. 50 allows in-country applicants three days to return with a document, should they not have it with them when making their application. While we expect people to realise that they need to bring their immigration documents, we accept both that that is not always the case and that people who were aware of the need for such documentation will sometimes forget it all the same. We do not want to penalise people who do not seek to frustrate our immigration controls and are willing to co-operate with the authorities. However, if the offence is to act as a deterrent, it must bite on both in-country and port cases. I hope that Government amendment No. 50 will reassure Members that concerns expressed in Committee have been dealt with.
      There was also concern that someone could, under clause 2, avoid the offence if they had a passport when they were interviewed, but subsequently disposed of it. For port cases, there was concern that if someone was, for example, asked for a passport by a surveillance officer, that could be construed as a first interview. If so, someone who destroyed the passport between showing it to a surveillance officer and the immigration control interview might not be caught by the offence. For in-country cases, a person might be able to avoid the offence by claiming to have been interviewed at port. That could be relied on mainly, although not necessarily exclusively, by people granted leave on entry.

      619
      To address that problem, the term "first interview" has been replaced by
      "at a leave or asylum interview",
      which is to be defined by subsection (10) to cover any interview in which a person seeks leave to enter or remain and, so far as they are not already covered, claims that removal would bleach our obligations under the refugee convention or the European convention on human rights. That ensures t hat someone cannot avoid committing the offence by saying they have been interviewed previously and were in possession of a passport at that time.
      Government amendment No. 34 and amendments Nos. 100 and 101 relate to article 31 of the refugee convention. In Committee, I said that the reasonable excuse contained in clause 2 provided for the protection offered under article 31, but I understood that that was an important issue, so I undertook to consider the way in which the defence, as set out in clause 2, would operate to ensure that it did not have the unintended effect of penalising any refugee who was protected by article 31.
      In particular, we have looked at subsection (5)(b), which rules out as a reasonable excuse three situations in which a person has deliberately destroyed or disposed of documents. We have concluded that the first two situations require no amendment, as there can never be a justifiable reason for a person to dispose of a passport to delay the handling of their claim or to enhance its chances of success. The third situation is where a person disposes of a passport at the behest of an agent or facilitator. In the great majority of cases, disposing of a passport for that reason is unacceptable, and it is important that clause 2 sends out the clear message that that is so.
      Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that there was a large influx of Chinese immigrants into my constituency during the summer? Many were illegal, and many of their passports and other documents had been destroyed by the people traffickers—the triads and snakehead gangs—who had imported them into this country at great expense to them and their families. What is her view on that?
      Beverley Hughes: The offence contained in the clause is designed to address precisely that kind of behaviour, so that we can send out the message that, if people destroy their documents, even at the behest of a facilitator or an agent, they will be liable to prosecution, except in the very special circumstance that I shall outline. Although some members of the Committee expressed concern that that would penalise the person who entered the country illegally, not the facilitator, we can already take strong measures against facilitators.
      If we are to change people's behaviour, we need parallel measures that we can use to try to ensure that people do not destroy their documents. As hon. Members will know, as well leaving us unable to identify people at the point at which they make their claim, the destruction of documents causes great difficulty in returning people to their own country if their claims fail. Without documentation is it very difficult to satisfy other countries that such people are indeed their own nationals, and one can understand why. We would feel
      620
      the same if we were asked to take people back. We would want evidence, which is very difficult to supply without documentation.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: I recognise the progress that has been made, but children who come to this country may have destroyed their documents at the behest of people who may well have exerted all sorts of force and influence on them. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the best interests of those children are being recognised in the amendments and Bill that she is proposing?
      Beverley Hughes: I assure my hon. Friend that the authorities—the immigration service, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service—will take such issues into account in operating the offence. I do not want to exclude children specifically from the Bill because that would provide a perverse incentive for people to declare themselves to be under 18. I can assure him—we had this discussion in Committee—that the guidance published for the authorities will make particular reference to that point.
      In the great majority of cases, as I have said, disposing of a passport, even at the behest of an agent or facilitator is unacceptable, but I accept that there may be rare cases in which refugees are so vulnerable, possibly traumatised and dependent on the facilitator for ensuring safe flight from persecution in their country that it would be unreasonable to expect them to ignore the facilitator's instructions. In those rare cases, refugees could argue that they had good cause for no longer having their passport, thus meriting the protection of article 31 of the convention.
      Government amendment No. 34 will modify subsection (5)(b)(iii), so that disposal on the advice or instruction of a facilitator is unacceptable,
      "unless in the circumstances of the case it is unreasonable to expect non-compliance with the instructions or advice."
      We have introduced the amendment primarily with refugees in mind, but Members will notice that we have not limited it to such persons. We have done so to ensure that we cater for the rare situation in which particularly vulnerable people can satisfy us that, despite their not being refugees, they still could not be expected to ignore instructions from their agent. I expect that exception to be relevant in only a very limited number of cases, but it is nevertheless important to have that safeguard in order to ensure that we comply with our obligations under the refugee convention and to cater for other exceptional cases.
      3.45 pm
      Clause 2, as amended, has two safeguards that ensure that the offence is not inconsistent with a proper interpretation of the protection afforded to certain refugees under article 31. The first is the "reasonable excuse" defence, which would cover situations in which persons had no document when they began their journey. Secondly, subsection (5)(b)(iii), as amended, makes allowances for those rare situations in which a person's actions in deliberately destroying the document might be considered a reasonable cause for the purposes of article 31. I therefore believe that the amendment tabled to provide for article 31 is not necessary. In some

      621
      respects, it does not go as far as my amendment, because, in rare situations, the latter can cover the actions of non-refugees who are nevertheless particularly vulnerable. I hope that that reassures Members of our commitment to the 1951 convention, and addresses the concerns raised in Committee.
      I shall comment briefly on the Opposition amendments. Amendment No. 99 is a probing amendment dealing with the burden that clause 2 places on an individual to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, he or she had a reasonable excuse for destroying the document. We have placed the burden on the defendant because where someone has a reasonable excuse for not having a document on arrival, the details of that story will usually be solely within the knowledge of that individual. In Committee, I gave the example of the person who had been smuggled on to a plane by a corrupt official and who had never had a document. It is clear that only that person would know the details of how and when that happened, so it is not unreasonable to ask the defendant to prove, on the balance of probability, that it did occur. I therefore believe it justifiable to require the defendant to prove that, and I am pleased to note that the Joint Committee on Human Rights also takes that view.
      The Opposition have tabled amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to allow those who can produce another document that establishes their identity to avoid the offence in question. As I said several times in Committee, if a person satisfies us that he or she has never had a passport, or has a reasonable excuse for not having one now in spite of having had one before, clause 2 will not catch him or her, and nor is it designed to do so. However, where a person has disposed of or destroyed a passport and can provide no reasonable excuse for doing so, I do not consider it right that he should be exempt from the offence simply because he then produces some other document—almost by definition, a lesser document—that, he says, shows who he is. That immediately gives rise to the questions of why the person disposed of the passport in the first place and why he has chosen to produce some other apparent evidence of identity. We need to be serious in sending out the message that destroying documents is not acceptable.
      Of course, if persons are making a genuine effort to identify themselves through the production of alternative identification, that might make us more inclined to accept any reasons given for their not having a passport, but as I have said, a person who has a reasonable excuse for not having a passport will not be prosecuted, whether or not he or she has other documents that might prove who they are.
      If the amendments were accepted, people could try to advance a defence by producing any sort of document that they claim establishes their identity, nationality or citizenship. Given that such documents could come from any part of the world and from many different types of organisation, deciding whether they are genuine and whether they establish identity satisfactorily would be extremely difficult and resource-intensive for United Kingdom authorities. Considerable operational difficulties attach to identifying whether alternative documents are genuine or forged. In any event, Members will appreciate that a document such as a
      622
      driving licence or student identity card would not be sufficient to travel on. The fact that a person has arrived in the UK suggests that they must have had a travel document in order to board, say, a plane in the first place. Furthermore, and returning to my earlier point about removals, I must say that driving licences and student identity cards do not allow us to return individuals; they are not sufficient for that purpose. That means that those who are trying to thwart return home by destroying documents would be able to do so safe in the knowledge that they could avoid the offence by producing some other, lesser document.
      Amendment No. 102 would create a statutory requirement for written guidance for the operation of the offence. As I said in Committee, we will produce such guidance—I intend to do so before the Bill is enacted—but I do not see a case for placing it on a statutory basis. I hope that my commitment is sufficient and that hon. Members will agree not to press the amendment.
      Mr. Humfrey Mans: I should tell the Minister straight away that Conservative Members welcome some of the Government amendments that have been tabled since our very constructive debates in Committee. We take the view that those who deliberately destroy their documents, thereby intentionally frustrating the system, should be punished. There can be no doubt that the House should send that message to people who arrive here on an aeroplane or a boat having boarded it with valid documentation but who, at some time during the journey or after landing, and before being interviewed by an immigration officer, destroy their documents. We are absolutely at one with the Government on that point.
      The Minister said that we are dealing with offences of deliberately destroying documents. However, clause 2 does not say that; it is not headed, "Entering the United Kingdom having destroyed a document". It says:
      "A person commits an offence if when … interviewed … he does not have with him an immigration document"—
      namely, a passport. Will the Minister tell me whether it is possible to draft the clause better to make it clear whom we are trying to prosecute?
      As was said in Committee, millions of children are born in this world every year who never have any form of passport; likewise, tens of thousands of people who travel to this country to claim asylum have never had a passport. No doubt, there are also tens of thousands whose documents are destroyed, one way or another, en route. In many ways, I understand the concerns of bodies such as the Law Society, that argue that these measures may penalise genuine refugees and expose them to the risk of prosecution. Many of the strongest applications for asylum come from individuals who have been forced to enter this country with no documents or invalid documents. The mischief that we are trying to address is that of the person who, when attending before a Home Office official or an immigration officer, cannot satisfactorily prove their identity. The problem arises when it is impossible for officials to tell where people come from and they will not provide that information.
      I therefore tabled amendment No. 1 as a probing amendment, which we shall not press to a vote. It would replace the requirement for a passport with one for a

      623
      document which would satisfactorily establish identity. If the mischief that the Minister is trying to tackle is the person who tears up a document, surely she should understand that applicants for asylum, who may never have had a passport but who can say to the immigration officer that they have a record of military service or proof of identity such as some sort of card, should not be guilty of an offence.
      The clause has been improved since our proceedings in Committee. I broadly welcome Government amendments Nos. 48, 50 and 34 because they tackle some of the issues that we raised there. I hope that the Minister can confirm some of the comments that she made then. She said:
      "Our intention is to be able as a result of this clause to prosecute people who deliberately destroy or dispose of their documents between embarkation and claiming asylum in this country. It is absolutely not our intention to try to prosecute people where we believe that they never had documents in the first place or that they have not destroyed documents, whether false or not."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 8 January 2004; c. 22.]
      If she is willing to repeat the undertaking that her intention is to prosecute only those who destroy documents, Conservative Members will be happier. The clause does not state that at all. It plainly provides that an offence is committed if the person
      "does not have with him an immigration document".
      Mr. Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend has lighted on an important point. Although the Minister made the comments that he quoted, the immigration officer at the port of entry will not have Committee Hansard in front of him, and I doubt whether it will be drawn to his attention. It is therefore important that the Minister should either include a provision in statute or undertake to provide specific guidelines to the immigration service so that the point that my hon. Friend makes so cogently is at the forefront of the mind of the officer who has to deal with each asylum applicant.
      Mr. Malins: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend who contributed so well to our Committee proceedings. Of course, he is right. No immigration officer who conducts an interview will have Hansard in front of him or her. The immigration officer is faced simply with the proposition that the offence is committed if the person does not have the document. Throughout our Committee proceedings, we asked the Minister to come back with a better-drafted provision. The measure is sloppy because although it provides for an offence, stating that one is committed in specific circumstances, we have to rely on the Government to say that, despite the legislation, they will not prosecute in a specific case. The Minister owes us further explanation.
      In Committee, I pointed out there are some 50 million unregistered births every year. That is approximately 30 per cent. of all births. The proposition that refugees, of all people, should be able to present passports is unreal. The Minister has failed to deal with that or to table a suitably drafted amendment.
      I was pleased to receive a letter from the Minister in February that stated:
      "Where we accept that a person began their journey with no such document we would regard that as a reasonable excuse for not having one on arrival."
      624
      It is all very well for the Minister to say that she would regard that as a reasonable excuse, but would the courts? The Bill is vague about that and does not satisfactorily establish sufficient protections for those who have simply never had a document. I have yet to hear from the Minister any argument against my proposition that the applicant could and should be able to identify himself or herself through another form of documentation.
      4 pm
      I do not think that the Minister answered the following question in Committee, but she should be able to tell us how many people she anticipates being prosecuted each year for the offence. In a year in which more than 100,000 applications were made for asylum, it is known to the authorities, I think, that a huge percentage of those people had no documents whatever. Under the Bill, therefore, a huge percentage would find themselves having committed an offence, leaving the immigration officer in question with virtually no alternative but to ensure the arrest of those people and ensure that they were charged. It is a big problem.
      On the other hand, the problem of those who tear up their documents is smaller and more easily controlled. It arises principally at airports and at ports to which people travel on boats, having provided passports in the first place. Amendment No. 1 would therefore insert the requirement for a document rather than a passport, on the basis that the mischief that the whole House is trying to address is those who destroy their documents rather than those who have never had any.
      I repeat the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that it is a poor thing that the immigration officer on the case must address his or her mind to Hansard reports to find out that the Minister has no intention of prosecuting anyone, except those who destroy their documents. That is the spirit in which I tabled the amendment. As I said, the Minister has gone some way to meeting concerns expressed in Committee on the defences and the times to produce documents—three days—and that represents some progress. It is possible, however, that she can make yet more progress and make the clause clearer and easier to enforce.
      Roger Casale: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution. Like many Members, I have received powerful representations in my constituency in relation to the Bill, not least from the Religious Society of Friends led by Kurt Strauss and from Alison Williams and the Merton and Wandsworth law centre, with which I do a great deal of work to help many refugees in my constituency. They understand the need to send a strong message to people who wilfully and unnecessarily destroy their documents. It is crucial, however, that we strike the right balance in terms of protecting people's rights, particularly under the conventions—the Minister has referred to article 31 in that connection. I am pleased that she has listened to those representations, and on that basis I feel more able to support these amendments and to give support to the broad spirit of the Bill.
      When the Minister responds, will she confirm that when special circumstances arise under the amendment that she is putting forward, each case will be looked at

      625
      on its merits? Of course, one would not expect the circumstances in which somebody does not have valid documents to be a valid defence—that would be the exception rather than the rule. Given the exceptional circumstances of many refugees and asylum seekers, however, there may be many cases. I hope that the Minister does not have a particular target in mind, such as 2, 3 or 5 per cent., but that she will look at each case on its merits to see whether such a defence will be possible under the new amendment. It is crucial that we have those safeguards that she is now putting in place to protect those rights, while at the same time having a robust and proper system that deters people from wilfully destroying their documents. Part of the operation of those rights, however, must be that each case is viewed on its merits, and I should be grateful if the Minister would reinforce that point and confirm that that is exactly what she will do.
      Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for listening so carefully to what was said in Committee. Before I say more about that, however, let me list our main problems with this part of the Bill.
      To avoid misunderstanding, I reiterate that we fully acknowledge the need to deal with the specific problem of those who wilfully destroy their passports and other travel documents to cause difficulties in the asylum and immigration system. None of us doubts the necessity for adequate statutory support allowing the immigration service to deal with those who commit that offence.
      Our difficulties arise in four principal areas, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). First, there is the nature of the offence that the Government are putting in statute. As he pointed out, the clause relates not to an act of commission—that of destroying documents—but to an act of omission, that of simply not having the documents at the time when they are required to be produced. The Minister has gone a long way towards reassuring us about the circumstances in which the powers would be used, but as things stand the offence is effectively absolute, and prosecutions can proceed on that basis.
      The second issue is the point at which the offence is committed. It seemed from the preamble that we were talking about ports of entry—seaports or airports—but the wording of the Bill made it clear that it referred to an interview at any point. In Committee, we told the Minister forcefully that we needed a much clearer definition of what constituted the interview at which the offence would be committed. I think that the Government amendments address that problem.
      The third difficulty is that effectively no discretion is given to immigration officers considering whether an offence has been committed. We have had a good deal of debate about the reasonable excuses that could be adduced before a court as a defence, but the fact remains that the immigration officer is faced with a simple decision that does not allow him or her to take the individual's circumstances into account. It is a case of whether people have their documents on them or not when they are interviewed. If they do not have them, they are committing an offence; if they do, they are not. The discretion that has been suggested for immigration
      626
      officers is not in the Bill as currently drafted. Again, the Minister has been helpful., but the guidance that she intends to publish will actually ask immigration officers to disregard what the Bill says and insert what the Minister wants. I would prefer legislation that stated what immigration officers were to do, and gave them the necessary discretion.
      Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman's contributions in Committee were much appreciated. At the beginning of her speech the Minister said that we were dealing with the offence of deliberately destroying documents. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is not the case? Surely we are dealing with the offence of not having the documents.
      Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is the offence that the Bill suggests. The Minister has said that she would expect the power to be used where an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the documents have been wilfully destroyed, but that is not the same as framing the offence in those terms, which is what she has thus far failed to do.
      Vera Baird: On that point—I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I sympathise with the Minister—would it not be extraordinarily difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that somewhere on the high seas or on a plane, an individual had personally destroyed their documents? If that is next to impossible, is not the better model to frame the charge of being here without documents, and leave open the prospect of a reasonable excuse, exculpating the individual from it if a satisfactory explanation can be provided? Is not that perfectly fair?
      Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady and I have some sympathy with her and the Minister's position. because I understand how difficult it is to frame the offence in the terms required to deal with the mischief. The answer to her point is that it is even more important to get the burden of proof right on the available statutory defences. That is my next point. If we can do that, I will be much more satisfied that the defendant has an appropriate defence for this apparently absolute offence and that the prosecution will then have to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. That does not apply at present, which is my fourth and most serious criticism of clause 2. Amendment No. 99, which is in my name, is designed to deal with that problem.
      As I have already said, the Government have been helpful to some extent on this particular clause. What the Minister said in Committee provided some reassurance, as did a subsequent letter, what she said today and the amendments that she has introduced. I greatly welcome the Government amendments that deal with defining the interview for the purposes of the offence being committed—a specific suggestion that I made in Committee, which the Minister has obviously considered and returned to. That is doubly helpful. It will ensure that the defendant is not caught out in unfair circumstances, and, more importantly from the Government's point of view, it will help the prosecution in taking away a defence that might otherwise be available. The present clarity—though it could be improved further—is helpful.

      627
      Will the Minister deal with a minor point about Government amendment No. 49? I see no problem with it generally, but I am interested in the words "or living", which were not part of the original wording. The amendment includes the words:
      "in respect of any dependent child with whom he claims to be travelling or living".
      I presume that that applies principally to the circumstances in which someone is interviewed in country—not at a point of entry to the UK. The Minister says that those circumstances will infrequently, but potentially, apply. The person is then required to have travel documents for a child with whom he or she may not have entered the UK, but who is now dependent on them. I believe that there is still a potential difficulty with that widening of the Bill's scope and I invite the Minister to reflect on it further.
      I welcome Government amendment No. 50, which deals with the delayed production of documents for those in country. It is a perfectly sensible provision, which we urged on the Minister in Committee. She has also been helpful on a point that affects my amendments Nos. 100 and 101, which deal with section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Confusingly, that deals with article 31 of the refugee convention. The Minister has been most helpful today and I believe that the Government amendments deal with the point that I sought to raise, so I shall not press it any further.
      The Minister has also been helpful on the content of amendment No. 102, which deals with the statutory duty to provide guidance. She has put it on the record that we will have guidance, which is good news.
      4.15 pm
      That leaves me with one final, very important matter: the burden of proof. In her opening remarks, the Minister suggested that amendment No. 99 was a probing amendment. I have to disappoint her. It is not a probing amendment, but one that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends mean very sincerely, because the effective reduction of the burden of proof is a real problem. It is not even a move from the prosecution's having to prove beyond reasonable doubt—which would normally be the case with a criminal offence—to the use of the balance of probabilities. It reverses that, because the defence will have to prove on the balance of probabilities that the reasonable excuse that it has put forward as a defence is proper. The prosecution does not have to do a thing about that, because if that proof is not shown, there is no defence.
      That is profoundly unsatisfactory as a matter of law. For the House's benefit, I draw attention to the fact that the words in amendment No. 99 are not new to statute, but are already in the Terrorism Act 2000. With this Bill, we have the extraordinary situation that the openings for the defence of someone prosecuted under the Terrorism Act are better than those of an individual who, under this legislation, happens not to have their passport with them at the time of their substantive interview at the point of charge.
      Mr. Garnier: In my experience, where the burden of proof lies is not always terribly important during the run of a trial. However, what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for is not outside the ordinary. Not only under the
      628
      Terrorism Act 2000, but in straightforward matters such as self-defence it is for the defendant to raise an issue and for the prosecution to knock it down. I am concerned that the Government seem to have forgotten that, and are placing an unusual burden on the defendant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will argue his case with vigour.
      Mr. Heath: The hon. and learned Gentleman's support on this issue in Committee was notable, and he clearly intends to maintain his support today. I am grateful for that. The Government are playing fast and loose with the rules of evidence and burden of proof in this instance, which is very significant. I quoted the 2000 Act simply because it contains an almost directly analogous situation in terms of a statutory defence available to the defendant that is then required to be disproved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. I do not think it unreasonable to expect the prosecution to do its work, nor do I think it unreasonable to seek to uphold a legal principle about reasonable doubt requirements in such matters that has persisted in this country since, I think, the early 1930s, and on which there is clear guidance. I do not understand what special circumstances make the Government—not for the first time, because they have suggested changing the burden of proof in other fields when it is administratively convenient—feel that is appropriate to abandon an important tenet.
      I think that the provision in my amendment, or something similar, will be passed in another place because there are enough people there who will feel strongly on the matter, and who have the expertise—well beyond my powers of persuasion—to ensure that a vote is passed. However, I should like to persuade this House that it has a role in defending the traditional tenets of our justice system, and that we should make a stand on such issues in this place.
      Because I feel very strongly about this, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I shall be able to catch your eye later in order to press amendment No. 99 to a Division. A very important principle is at stake here, in terms of the conduct of our criminal trials, and it should not be allowed to go simply because of inadvertence on the part of the House or complacency on the part of Ministers or others who have advised them that this is an appropriate way to go.
      Mr. Garnier: Looking at the clock, I see that we have until about 4.50 pm to discuss not only this group of amendments but four others, which demonstrates the absurd nature of the proceedings with which we must now contend, on an issue of such important public interest.
      I want briefly to discuss clause 2 and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). I broadly agree with the thrust of what he said, but the Government's problem is that they have allowed themselves to be confused by the magic of terms such as "passport" and "travel document". Surely clause 2 is about discovering the identity of the person presenting himself to an official at the sea port or airport, or at a later interview. There are plenty of ways of proving one's identity other than by a passport or travel document. We had a brief discussion on this in Committee, although it was necessarily truncated because of the guillotine procedure.

      629
      The wider public who might come to read or perhaps listen to these proceedings might not know that the Government are wedded to the idea of people proving their identity at the point of presentation or interview by means of a passport or travel document only. As I have said, there are plenty of other ways of proving one's identity. Indeed, if we are to be strict about this, a passport is not necessarily a proof of identity. I see my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—a fellow of All Souls—sitting two Benches below me; I do not think that I need to go into a huge and interesting philosophical discussion about the nature of identity. For practical purposes, an immigration or asylum officer will need to ask, "Who is this person presenting himself to me? Is he who he says he is?" That procedure does not necessarily have to involve a passport. I therefore ask the Government to think carefully about the need to tie themselves down to a requirement for someone to prove their identity by means of a passport or immigration document.
      Let us imagine, for example, the case of an army or military group that had been the military arm of a country's Government but had ceased to have the confidence of the new Government, perhaps after a coup or some other form of change in government. The armed forces would therefore cease to be the official army and would be designated as rebels by the new Government. That might require a member of the former armed force—now a rebel—to seek asylum in another country because he had a genuine fear for his life in his home country. He might not have a passport or travel document, because he had had no need for one, having lived all his life in the country that was now in turmoil. He might, however, have his military dog-tag; he would therefore have his military number and possibly his name on the brass plate around his neck.
      Under clause 2, however, that would not be a permissible means of identification. The individual who arrived on our shores or at one of our airports presenting his dog-tag would therefore have committed an offence, because he did not have a travel document. It could well be said that the Government's new amendment, providing for a reasonable excuse, will lift liability from that individual under the clause. However, let us look again at the amendment tabled by the Home Secretary and no doubt moved—implicitly, if not expressly—by the Minister, to whom I offer many congratulations on becoming a member of the Privy Council, although I gather from Labour party circles that membership of the Privy Council is a rather fluid arrangement at the moment.
      The Home Secretary's amendment again refers to a travel document and to a passport as the means of proving identity. I can well understand the Government's argument; if one arrives on these shores in a tin bath, having capsized several times, one's passport and documents will have been washed away and will not be presentable immediately to immigration officers. One will have a reasonable excuse if it can be demonstrated, on the Government's argument, that that is what happened. There are plenty of examples—I have just given one—where someone's identity can be "proved", in so far as it is possible to prove identity at all, by means other than a travel document or a passport.
      630
      In the light of the shortness of time, and the fact that I have a suspicion that others will wish to speak, I will stop there. I hope that my remarks will prove attractive to the Minister, and not only for their brevity, and that she will respond positively at the end of the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking correctly stated, we are simply trying to prevent people from destroying documents—from cheating. We do not want people to cheat the immigration and asylum system.
      We want to make sure that those who have a genuine claim under our laws and who come within article 51 of the UN convention can come to this country to present their claim as asylum seekers, but are not tied to identifying themselves by a particular class of document. That seems to be silly, unfair, counterproductive and probably not what the Government intend.
      Annabelle Ewing: I rise to support amendment No. 99, tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and spoken to by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I shall be brief as a few others wish to speak.
      The amendment covers an important point of principle. As the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) said, clause 2 still does not exclude those people whom the Minister has been at pains to say are excluded—in effect or as a matter of practice—from the scope of the Bill. Her statements in Committee were welcome, as far as they went. However, I still do not see that express exclusion and, as a lawyer, I think it helpful to have legal certainty in statutes. If it is not the Government's intention to prosecute people who never had any documents, that statement should be in the Bill.

      The burden of proof is raised by amendment No. 99, which I am pleased the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will seek to press to a Division. The amendment raises a key point of constitutional principle. The Government's recent record seems to show that they are intent on denuding this country of its fundamental constitutional principles. It has always been the case that, in criminal prosecutions, the burden is placed on the Crown to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Where a special defence is raised, it is up to the accused in Scotland or the defendant south of the border to make a reasonable argument, but the burden remains with the prosecuting authorities. We have been well served by that constitutional principle for centuries, certainly in Scotland.
      It is astonishing that the Government plan, with a stroke of the pen, to get rid of that principle as far as asylum is concerned. That is unacceptable; if we see the erosion of that fundamental principle today on asylum, what will we see tomorrow? Where does the buck stop? Where will the line be drawn in terms of removing that fundamental principle?
      4.30 pm
      Beverley Hughes: I realise that I may not have time to reply to the debate so, to reflect the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), will the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) and other Members who spoke in a similar vein explain how they think the prosecuting authorities could prove beyond reasonable doubt when, where and how

      631
      an individual disposed of or destroyed their documents, between boarding a plane in another part of the world and travelling across airspace, when that act may not have taken place within UK jurisdiction but in the plane, outside British airspace?
      Annabelle Ewing: The Minister should never underestimate the ingenuity of prosecuting authorities. The scope of the clause should be wide enough to cover people who never had those documents in the first place. That is the problem, but the Minister has not addressed it.
      Mr. Heath: Is not the key point that the prosecution does not have such a requirement under the wording of the offence in the Bill? Our argument is simply that the prosecution should have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that such a defence does not apply, which is completely different from proving that documents were destroyed in a particular place.
      Annabelle Ewing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention and for clarification of his amendment. The amendment provides specifically that the Crown has to knock back the defence of reasonable excuse submitted by the accused in Scotland, or the defendant south of the border. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is an important provision and I shall be happy to support it if a Division is called.
      Vera Baird: I shall confine my remarks to amendment No. 99, with which I disagree. However, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for his concession about the difficulty that would be faced by prosecution authorities when trying to prove by whom, how, when and where a document was destroyed. That is the degree of detail that is usually required when framing a criminal indictment and the hon. Gentleman readily conceded that it would be extremely difficult to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. That is the test, which is why the offence is framed as it is—a point that he seemed to accept.
      However, on the question of the burden of proof in a reasonable excuse, are we not in exactly the same position? The only person who knows how the document came to be destroyed, or why it does not exist, is the person who does not have their document with them when they arrive. How is the prosecution to disprove it if the person says, "My passport fell overboard when I was moving from a big ship to a small boat somewhere just off the coast of Malaysia"? A person has only to say that and the amendment would then impose on the Crown the necessity to disprove beyond reasonable doubt that such an event had occurred, which would be quite impossible. As the hon. Gentleman has already conceded, that same impossibility shows the wisdom of the current framing of the offence.
      All that is required is that the person with the unique knowledge of what happened must show that it is more probable than not that he is telling the truth. That seems a reasonable way to evaluate something that, in 90 per cent. of cases, only that person can possibly know about. The tribunal will say, "That's probably true", in which case the person has passed the test. That test is not mighty or difficult, but perfectly reasonable. It certainly
      632
      is not, as the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) said, a constitutional principle that in each and every criminal case the prosecution must prove every element beyond reasonable doubt, and that the only requirement for the defendant is to raise a defence, which must always be disproved.
      There are innumerable cases in licensing, for example, or involving other kinds of permit, when it is uniquely in the person's knowledge whether they have a reasonable excuse for not holding the required document. Sometimes, people just have to declare their excuse, while under other legislation they have to discharge the burden of showing that it is probably true. There is no constitutional principle here.
      I point in particular to the fact that the defence of diminished responsibility for murder relies on the defendant showing on the balance of probabilities that what he says about his state of mind at the time is true. I respectfully say that no constitutional principle is being undermined, and the amendment is wholly impractical.
      Mr. John Redwood: Listening to the debate, I have been swayed by the softer voices of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), urging the Government to caution in framing this offence. I am persuaded to their view because the offence attracts a sentence of up to two years' imprisonment. Someone could genuinely have had their wallet or handbag stolen on the ferry over to this country, and if their plea in mitigation was unsuccessful they could go to prison here. I wonder whether we should really be adding to the prison population for such a purpose.
      It is a pity that we will not have time for a proper debate on penalties, because one would have thought that people trying to come here illegally might regard being sent back as a more serious punishment, and that might be a more sensible response in our own national interest, undesirable though two years at Her Majesty's pleasure might be for most people.
      I urge the Minister to think more carefully about the framing of this offence, in light of the good and learned arguments advanced by Conservative Members and the doubts expressed from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
      Mr. Bob Blizzard: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned sending people back who arrive here without the necessary documents. To where would he send them?
      Mr. Redwood: To the place they had just come from, because they would be arriving at a port of entry off a flight or a ferry, and surely the authorities could work out where that flight or ferry had just come from. In most cases, the answer will be straightforward.
      Mr. Blizzard: Would not the country at the other end, receiving this person with no passport or documents, just send them straight back here? This poor soul might spend the rest of his life flying back and forth on an aeroplane.
      Mr. Redwood: Of course not. Very often, these people will come from a country that shares glorious

      633
      membership of the European Union with us. This is precisely the kind of thing on which we should use our influence in the European Union to come to a sensible arrangement so that we do not end up playing shuttlecock with refugees or people seeking entry who do not have the right qualifications or reasons. That is surely within the diplomatic skills of some members of the Government, so that we can have common sense in this matter.
      Glenda Jackson: I was unable to ask the Minister this question directly. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will ask her where these people will go at the end of their prison sentence.
      Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because she has reinforced my case. Presumably, the Minister wants these people to go somewhere else after the prison sentence, so the problem remains. In the end, she must answer our question about where they are to be sent, and that is more difficult six months or two years later, after a prison term, than it would be on the day, on first arrival in the country, when we would normally know where they had come from. Arrangements could surely be made at the airport to ensure that that is the case. Perhaps we should pass legislation to ensure that we can identify exactly where people have come from when they arrive here, rather than legislating to send a lot of people to prison, some of whom might be innocent, because they have genuinely mislaid their travel documents or had them stolen in transit.
      Vera Baird: There are often many reasons for drafting law, and I imagine that the most powerful one in this case is to deter people from destroying their documents in the first place. Although the problem subsists beyond the prison sentence, surely that purpose at least commends itself to the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Redwood: I, like my hon. Friends, am worried about how wide the offence will become and whether it will be enforceable. The Minister thinks that she is making a firm proposal, but I assume that many people who are challenged will give all sorts of reasons why they do not have documents. Many may claim, as I suggested, that their handbag or wallet was snatched on their way over and that that contained the documents. Some might come up with the reason suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird): their documents fell overboard when they got off one ship and on to another. They might say that they left the documents lying around in the bar of the ferry and that they had disappeared when they came to pick them up again. In some cases, those people will be telling the truth and it will up to the court to listen carefully to that defence, but in other cases they will not be telling the truth. I wonder how easy it will be for the enforcement authorities to decide which people had deliberately destroyed their documents and come up with a bogus claim about what happened to them, and which had genuinely suffered a misfortune or mishap on the way over and thus did not deserve to go to prison.
      I know that many hon. Members would like to hear the Minister's reply, so I shall not detain the House any longer. We want to know about the burden of proof and
      634
      the width of the offence—whether it is too widely judged. I would like to know why prison is thought always to be the answer and, especially, how the Minister thinks that we will sift out those who make a reasonable defence for where their travel documents have gone from those who try to mislead the authorities—I do not think that that will be an easy task.
      Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way because I know that he is keen to finish his speech. Clause 6 contains a list of things that will be used to decide a claimant's credibility. I do not know whether they will satisfy the hon and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), but clearly the Government are worried about people telling fibs to officials.
      Mr. Redwood: My hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. The more provisions there are in the clause-there are quite a number—the more complex things will be for the courts and the more worries I have about how enforceable the offence will be. The Minister must tell us why prison must be the result, how enforceable the offence will be, and whether it is right to reverse the burden of proof on this occasion, because that might not work with the result that she has in mind.
      Beverley Hughes: In the small amount of time that I have left, I would like to address a question that several hon. Members asked: why clause 2 is constructed as it is. I am again grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) because she asked questions of hon. Members that revealed the answer to that question. Let us consider the situation that we would face if the clause created the offence of destroying or disposing of travel documents. A prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that had occurred. My hon. and learned Friend and I made it clear that that would require the prosecution to be able to say in court who had destroyed or disposed of the document, and when, how and where that had happened.
      We are, of course, talking about a situation in which people travel from countries far across the world and thus spend a long time in a plane. They will also be airside in a British airport for some time, so they will have hundreds of opportunities to dispose of or destroy their documents during the journey. As I said, some of those opportunities will arise outside the UK, so even if it were possible to prove that people had disposed of their documents by handing them to an agent immediately after boarding a plane, that might well not be in a British court's jurisdiction. The potential for proving an offence would be negligible if the clause were constructed differently.
      Similarly, under the clause as it stands, for the same reasons, it is virtually impossible for the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the defence put forward is not true. The present construction of the clause reflects the reality that we are dealing with. This is not like a police investigation within the confines of the United Kingdom, in which the authorities can adduce and search for evidence, and put it before the court to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.

      635
      4.45 pm
      We are not in that situation, and it is impossible for the prosecuting authorities to do that, so the clause is not sloppy. Neither I, nor my officials, nor parliamentary counsel are complacent because we constructed the clause in that way. We did so because that is the only feasible way of constructing an offence that will catch some people who have disposed of their documents.
      The burden of proof in clause 2 means that it is for the prosecution to establish that someone has arrived without a document, and the defence of reasonable excuse is open to the applicant. On the balance of probabilities, the burden of proof is for the defendant to establish, because only the defendant knows what has happened. It is virtually impossible for the prosecution to know what has happened, or to be able to establish that with any degree of credibility.
      In response to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), I should explain that the main purpose of the provision is deterrence, and if hon. Members are serious about agreeing that we need a sanction to prevent people from disposing of or destroying their documents, and to enable us to take action when they do, they should realise that this is the only feasible way of constructing such an offence. Anything else would be impossible for the prosecuting authorities to operate.
      Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady—as I now know her to be, and I congratulate her on that status—for giving way to me. However, the limited range of opportunities to exercise the reasonable excuse defence means that there is a limited number of options for the prosecution to prove. Given that, as she said, only the defendant knows what has happened, it will be equally difficult for the defendant to establish to the satisfaction of the court, even on the balance of probabilities, that there is a reasonable excuse. In that case, surely it is a basic principle of British law that people are presumed to be innocent unless they are proved guilty.
      Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman must consider what I said about the reality of the situation here. I concede that it is possible that the reason why someone has no document when they arrive is that they have never had one—and I am happy to give the right hon. Member for Wokingham an assurance that we are not interested in prosecuting people in those circumstances. However, we had a considerable debate on that subject in Committee, and the fact is that the vast majority of people who arrive without documents have destroyed them or disposed of them. There is only a very limited range of excuses. [Interruption.] If people have a reasonable excuse, it is up to them to put it forward and establish it on the balance of probabilities.
      Mr. Garnier: As the right hon. Lady now has only 30 seconds left in this rather important debate, will she briefly deal with the argument that I put to her about the passport as opposed to the means of identity?
      Beverley Hughes: We cannot accept other documents because people cannot travel on other documents. They must a have a travel document—
      Mr. Garnier: I used my Visa card.
      Beverley Hughes: They must have a travel document—
      636
      It being one hour and fifteen minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendment proposed: No. 99, in page 2, line 30, at end insert—
      '(4A) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsections (1) and (2) above, and relies on a defence under subsections (3) and (4) above, if the person adduces evidence which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to the matter, the court or jury shall assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.'.—[Mr. Heath.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 309.

      Division No. 61

      [4:49 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Baker, Norman

      Barrett, John

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Lamb, Norman

      Best, Harold

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Breed, Colin

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Burnett, John

      Moore, Michael

      Burstow, Paul

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Opik, Lembit

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Chidgey, David

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Cotter, Brian

      Rendel, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Salmond, Alex

      Dawson, Hilton

      Sanders, Adrian

      Doughty, Sue

      Stunell, Andrew Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Teather, Sarah

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Thurso, John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Harvey, Nick

      Weir, Michael

      Heath, David

      Willis, Phil

      Holmes, Paul

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Bob Russell and

      Keetch, Paul

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Baird, Vera

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Banks, Tony

      Ainger, Nick

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Battle, John

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bayley, Hugh

      Allen, Graham

      Beard, Nigel

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Benn, rh Hilary

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bennett, Andrew

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Benton, Joe (Booth)

      Austin, John

      Berry, Roger

      Bailey, Adrian

      Betts, Clive

      637

      Blackman, Liz

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Fisher, Mark

      Blizzard, Bob

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Flint, Caroline

      Borrow, David

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Brennan, Kevin

      Foulkes, rh George

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Gapes, Mike (llford S)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Browne, Desmond

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Bryant, Chris

      Gerrard, Neil

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Burden, Richard

      Gilroy, Linda

      Burgon, Colin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Burnham, Andy

      Goggins, Paul

      Burnside, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Grogan, John

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Hain, rh Peter

      Cairns, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hanson, David

      Casale, Roger

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Caton, Martin

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Challen, Colin

      Healey, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Chaytor, David

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Heppell, John

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Clelland, David

      Heyes, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Coleman, lain

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Colman, Tony

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Corston, Jean

      Cranston, Ross

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Crausby, David

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Hutton, rh John

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cummings, John

      lllsley, Eric

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

      Ingram, rh Adam

      (Copeland)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jamieson, David

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      David, Wayne

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Doran, Frank

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Eagle Maria (L'pooi Garston)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Edwards, Huw

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Efford, Clive

      Kemp, Fraser

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Kidney, David

      Etherington, Bill

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Farrelly, Paul

      638

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lammy, David

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

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rooney, Terry

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Linton, Martin

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Ruane, Chris

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Ruddock, Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McCafferty, Chris

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Salter, Martin

      MacDonald, Calum

      Savidge, Malcolm

      MacDougall, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKechin, Ann

      Simon, Si6n (B'ham Erdington)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      McNulty, Tony

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      McWalter, Tony

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Mallaber, Judy

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Squire, Rachel

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Martlew, Eric

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Merron, Gillian

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Michael, rh Alun

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Miliband, David

      Stringer, Graham

      Miller, Andrew

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Moffatt, Laura

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Mole, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Moran, Margaret

      Timms, Stephen

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mountford, Kali

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Mullin, Chris

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Trickett, Jon

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Truswell, Paul

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

      O'Hara, Edward

      Kemptown)

      Olner, Bill

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Twigg, Derek (Ha/ton)

      Organ, Diana

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Pearson, Ian

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pickthall, Colin

      Ward, Claire

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Plaskitt, James

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Pollard, Kerry

      White, Brian

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pound, Stephen

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Woolas, Phil

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Worthington, Tony

      Purchase, Ken

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Purnell, James

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Wyatt, Derek

      639

      Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Jim Murph and Paul Clark

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 49, in page 2, leave out from beginnig of line 9 tot second 'an' in line 11 and insert ߞ
      '(2) A person commits an offence if at a leave or asylum interview he does not have with him, in respect of any dependent child with whom he claims to be travelling or living,'.
      No. 50, in page 2, line 14, at end insertߞ
      `(2A) But a person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) or (2) ifߞ

      (a)the interview referred to in that subsection takes place after the person has entered the United Kingdom, and

      (b)within the period of three days beginning with the date of the interview the person provides to an immigration officer or to the Secretary of State a document of the kind referred to in that subsection.'.

      No. 51, in page 2, line 30, at end insertߞ
      `() Where the charge for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) relates to an interview which takes place after the defendant has entered the United Kingdomߞ

      (a) subsections (3)(c) and (4)(c) shall not apply, but

      (b) it is a defence for the defendant to prove that he has a reasonable excuse for not providing a document in accordance with subsection (2A).'.

      No. 52, in page 2, line 33, after first It', insertߞ
      'or for not providing it in accordance with subsection (2A)'
      No. 34, in page 2, line 44, at end insert
      unless in the circumstances of the case it is unreasonable to expect non-compliance with the instructions or advice.'.
      No. 53, in page 2, line 46, after 'officer', insert
      'or official of the Secretary of State'.
      No. 24, in page 3, line 4, leave out 'six' and insert `twelve'.
      No. 54, in page 3, line 23, at end insertߞ ', and
      "leave or asylum interview" means an interview with an immigration officer or an official of the Secretary of State at which a personߞ

      (a) seeks leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or

      (b) claims that to remove him from or require him to leave the United Kingdom would breach the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention or would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) as being incompatible with his Convention rights.'

      No. 25, in page 3, line 23, at end insertߞ
      `() In so far as this section extends to England and Wales, subsection (7)(b) shall, until the commencement of section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (increased limit on magistrates' power of imprisonment), have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.
      () In so far as this section extends to Scotland, subsection (7)(b) shall have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.
      () In so far as this section extends to Northern Ireland, subsection (7)(b) shall have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.'.
      No. 55, in page 3, line 23, at end insertߞ
      `() Section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) shall have effect for the purpose of the construction of a reference in this section to entering the United Kingdom.'. [Beverley Hughes.]

    Clause 6

      CLAIMANT'S CREDIBILITY
      Amendments made: No. 58, in page 5, line 37, leave out
      `of any behaviour by the claimant'
      and insertߞ
      as damaging the claimant's credibility, of any behaviour to which this section applies.
      No. 59, in page 5, line 40, at end insert 'or'.
      No. 60, in page 5, line 42, leave out from 'claimant,' to end of line 43.
      No. 61, in page 6, leave out from beginning of line 13 to first `to' in line 14 and insertߞ>
      '(3) This section also applies to failure by the claimant'.
      No. 62, in page 6, line 15, leave out from 'country' to end of line 16.
      No. 63, in page 6, leave out from beginning of line 17 to 'make' in line 18 and insertߞ
      '(4) This section also applies to failure by the claimant to'.
      No. 64, in page 6, line 19, leave out from `decision' to `unless' in line 20.
      No. 65, in page 6, leave out from beginning of line 22 to `make' in line 23 and insertߞ
      `(5) This section also applies to failure by the claimant to'.
      No. 66, in page 6, line 24, leave out from `provision' to `unless' in line 25.
      No. 67, in page 6, line 26, leave out 'the person' and insert `he'.
      No. 68, in page 7, line 4, leave out 'and'.
      No. 69, in page 7, line 6, at end insertߞ
      ',and
      (g) a decision to take action in relation to a person in connection with extradition from the United Kingdom,'.
      No. 70, in page 7, line 10, leave out 'and'. No. 71, in page 7, line 11, at end insertߞ
      and
      (d) a provision of the Extradition Act 1989 (c. 33) or 2003 (c. 41),'.
      No. 72, in page 7, leave out line 21.
      No. 73, in page 7, line 45, at end insertߞ
      `() This section shall not prevent a deciding authority from determining not to believe a statement on the grounds of behaviour to which this section does not apply.'.ߞ[Beverley Hughes.]

    Clause 15

      DEPORTATION OR REMOVAL: CO-OPERATION
      Amendments made: No. 28, in page 16, line 19, leave out 'six' and insertߞ'twelve'.
      No. 37, in page 16, line 42, leave out subsection (8) and insertߞ
      `(8) While sections 11 and 12 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) continue to have effect, the reference in subsection (7)(c) above to Schedule 3 to this Act shall be treated as including a reference to those sections.'.
      No. 29, in page 16, line 45, at end insertߞ
      '() In so far as subsection (3) extends to England and Wales, subsection (4)(b) shall, until the commencement of section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (increased limit on magistrates' power of imprisonment), have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.
      () In so far as subsection (3) extends to Scotland, subsection (4)(b) shall have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.
      () In so far as subsection (3) extends to Northern Ireland, subsection (4)(b) shall have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.'. ߞ [Beverley Hughes.]

    Clause 4

      TRAFFICKING PEOPLE FOR EXPLOITATION
      Amendments made: No. 56, in page 4, line 26, leave out 'or'.
      No. 57, in page 4, line 30, at end insert—
      ',or
      (d) he is requested or induced to undertake any activity, having been chosen as the subject of the request or inducement on the grounds that—
      (i) he is mentally or physically ill or disabled, he is young or he has a family relationship with a person, and
      (ii) a person without the illness, disability, youth or family relationship would be likely to refuse the request or resist the inducement.'.
      No. 26, in page 4, line 34, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'. ߞ [Beverley Hughes.]

    Clause 5

      SECTION 4: SUPPLEMENTAL
      Amendments made: No. 35, in page 5, line 22, at end insert—
      '() At the end of paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (lifestyle offences: Scotland: people trafficking) add "or under section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (exploitation)".'.
      No. 27, in page 5, line 32, at end insertߞ
      4() In so far as section 4 extends to England and Wales, subsection (5)(b) shall, until the commencement of section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (increased limit on magistrates' power of imprisonment), have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.
      () In so far as section 4 extends to Northern Ireland, subsection (5)(b) shall have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.'.
      No. 36, in page 5, line 32, at end insert—
      `() In so far as section 4 extends to Scotland, subsection (5)(b) shall have effect as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six months.'. ߞ [Beverley Hughes.]
      Mr. Malins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to seek your guidance, as throughout Committee we were completely unable to debate clause 6, which is of vital importance. You will have noticed that today the Government have tabled 16 amendments to the clause, but we still have not had a chance to debate it. Is there anything that you can do to ensure that that vital clause, which the Government are amending with 16 amendments, is debated today?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make.
      642
      These matters have already been decided by the House, and they are not matters on which the Chair can comment.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With respect to the hon. Lady, we will only waste time if we deal with any further points of order, and cut into the precious time for these matters, so perhaps we can move straight on.

    Clause 7

      FAILED ASYLUM SEEKERS: WITHDRAWAL OF SUPPORT
      Mr. Dawson: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 8, line 5, leave out clause 7.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker:With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Amendment No. 17, in page 8, line 23, leave out 'has' and insert—
      'and his legal representative have'.
      Amendment No. 16, in page 8, line 25, leave out '14' and insert '28'.
      Amendment No. 18, in page 8, line 31, after 'address', insert—
      'and to his legal representative'.
      Amendment No. 19, in page 8, line 34, at end insert—
      `by up to 7 days'.
      Government amendments Nos. 74 to 77.
      Amendment No. 33, in schedule 4, page 41, line 24, second column, at beginning insert—
      `Section 55.'.
      New clause 1—Repeal of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—
      'Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (late claim for asylum: refusal of support) shall cease to have effect.'.
      New clause 12—Determination of claim for asylum—
      'For subsection 94(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 substitute—
      "(3) For the purposes of this Part, a claim for asylum is determined at the end of such period beginning—
      (a) on the day on which the Secretary of State notifies the claimant of the associated termination of his or her support, or
      (b) if the claimant has appealed against the Secretary of State's decision, and the appeal has been disposed of, on the day on which the Secretary of State notifies the appellant of the associated termination of his or her support,
      as may be prescribed.".'.
      Mr. Dawson: Having moved the amendment, may I add that I support new clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard)?
      Eight days ago I had the privilege of attending a multi-faith commemorative service in Lancaster cathedral to mark the tragic loss of 20 poor souls only four or five miles away on the sands of Morecambe bay. That dreadful incident is well known to hon. Members,

      643
      and undoubtedly the disaster had many facets. However, it is important to note that in that packed cathedral, in which the congregation was made up of people of many denominations and faiths, there was compassion for the people who lost their lives, irrespective of their asylum status or the country from which they came. It was an utterly moving occasion.
      I am pleased to have had the opportunity to move amendment No. 23, and grateful for the support of Labour Back Benchers, Liberal Democrats and Scottish nationalists. However, I am dismayed that all the sound and fury from the Leader of the Opposition on this matter only a few weeks ago now apparently signifies nothing. His strong feelings have evaporated into the puny efforts of amendments Nos. 16 to 19. In less than an hour, Conservative Members will have the chance to redeem themselves.
      Mr. Malins: May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition rightly complained about the Downing street briefing on a policy of taking children into care? That briefing took place before the Bill was published, and he was entirely right to say that no Bill should include any such measure.
      Mr. Dawson: I was under the impression that the Leader of the Opposition cared about asylum seekers, but plainly that is not the case.
      Before long, Conservative Members will have a chance to redeem themselves by supporting the amendment, which would delete every word of clause 7, in a Division. If they fail to do so, their efforts to express concern about the protection of vulnerable children, which is the subject of their Opposition debate on Wednesday, will be met with ridicule. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration for the meeting that she allowed me after Second Reading to discuss my concerns about clause 7. I was pleased to receive a draft outline of the five-stage process that the National Asylum Support Service would undertake before support to failed asylum-seeking families who are not co-operating with the departure process ends.
      I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's conscientious work in trying to achieve a fair asylum and immigration system in this country, and I support her in that work: it is necessary to achieve that fair and open system in this country and, clearly, difficult steps have to be taken to do so. However, I absolutely and firmly believe that it is morally wrong to make families destitute—or, indeed, to threaten to make them destitute—as part of a process to encourage them to return home. I cannot believe that I am alone in that view or that the only hon. Members who support it are those who have so far signed up to amendment No. 23. I suspect that all hon. Members on both sides of the House would oppose clause 7 if they were able to answer honestly when asked away from the confines of the Chamber and the party whipping system.
      Mr. Tony McWalter: Does not every law that we pass include sanctions that may well result in parents going to prison, so that,
      644
      in turn, their children become looked after by local authorities and others? Is this, in fact, not exactly the same kind of measure?
      Mr. Dawson: I am not aware of any measure that has reached this stage in the House that would make children in this country destitute. I cannot believe that such a measure is acceptable. Frankly, I cannot believe that it is coming from the party of which I have been a member for more than quarter of a century.
      Such a measure is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. Once all advocacy has failed, there is a more effective way to work with families who have to return home. The ultimate sanction for such families is not stripping them of every possible means of livelihood, but enforced removal. The work that needs to be done for those families for whom all efforts to remain have failed includes counselling to help them to face the reality of their situation, practical support to help them to prepare for going home, good communication with nongovernmental organisations, public agencies, and family or kinship networks in their home countries to ensure that they will be properly received and that there will be somewhere reasonable for them to go. That involves sensitive, careful and detailed work.
      Beverley Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if a family co-operates in the way that he outlines—by keeping appointments and being prepared to meet voluntary organisations to talk about their return—they will be fully supported throughout the process? That support will not end. What would he advise us to do in those circumstances where a family resolutely will not co-operate with those requests for interviews or take part in opportunities to work with voluntary organisations? What should we do then?
      Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I want to address precisely the issues that she raises. The programme that she sets out is a good one—I would want more work to be put into it and more resources devoted to it—but what she wants to do with the families she describes is fatally undermined by the principles of clause 7.
      5.15 pm
      This Government sometimes overlook the value and significance of social work with families, and they would achieve a great deal more if they remembered what social workers do. Social workers have an enormous role to play in taking on work relating to such families and unaccompanied children. Reunification is an important social task, and the approach that I am suggesting—by contrast with that set out in the Bill, and in clause 7 in particular-is entirely ethical. Such families would respond more readily to my approach because it would help to allay their fears, and because it would provide them with real and practical assistance.
      Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am very interested in, and supportive of, what the hon. Gentleman says. Does he agree that when the Government produced their Green Paper "Every Child

      645
      Matters", we Members of Parliament thought that they meant every child, not every child except the children of asylum seekers and immigrants?
      Mr. Dawson: The hon. Lady is clearly right, and "every child matters" is a fine and inspirational statement that we should try to apply to all children living in this country, wherever they came from and whatever their asylum status.
      I am advocating a much greater emphasis on linking families in this country with resources in their own country, and the development of real, international, good-quality family social work. Unlike clause 7, my approach would not drive families underground and into the hands of criminals, traffickers and pimps. It would not encourage families to leave their children with social services because they do not have the means to look after them themselves. It would not lead to families being made destitute and homeless, and to their being criminalised and having to beg on the streets. It is true that it would not prevent forced removals, but nor would clause 7. It would not provide documents for those who cannot be removed, but nor would clause 7. However, it would not alienate the entire social work profession, the very professional standards of which should ensure that no social worker complies with clause 7. Indeed, the British Association of Social Workers has demonstrated outside Parliament today, probably for the first time in decades, against the Bill and against the fact that this proposal works entirely against the standing and principles of its profession.
      The course of action that I am suggesting would be more humane and helpful than clause 7, and I believe that it would work. An international social work approach to these very difficult human issues would work far better than what is currently envisaged under clause 7. It would be principled and rooted in the UN convention on the rights of the child, and in the European convention on human rights; but it would also be firm and fair. Indeed, I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister would advocate such an approach, but it cannot work alongside clause 7. As well as being simply wrong, making people and their children destitute when they are desperate, afraid and utterly uncertain as to what the future might hold is completely counter-productive.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister asks how I would deal with people who will not comply. I would not do so by making them so utterly destitute that they have to seek their resources from elsewhere—by going underground. I would do so through simple, patient face-to-face work that helps them to face the reality of the situation, and which gives them practical support and treats them with dignity and humanity. Such an approach might not work in all cases, but it is by far the best one for a civilised country to take, and I believe that it would work in the vast majority of cases.
      I honestly believe that mine is the right approach. I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Minister to dump clause 7 today, although it would be marvellous if she did. I shall be voting against it, and I hope that every Member of the House will vote with their conscience and help to reject it.
      646
      Whatever the fate of this clause or this severely flawed Bill, I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept my proposal in good faith and resist the urge to tell me that although it is all very well, it will never work in practice. I hope that before the Bill goes through or plans to remove unaccompanied asylum seeking children are introduced, she will agree to work with the social work profession to develop a more ethical and effective approach and a calmer, more reasonable and more helpful way in which to assist people to find their way out of dreadful, uncertain circumstances in this country and to give them a better certainty in future when they have to go home.
      Mr. Malins: I thank the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who has a history of interest in such matters, for the way in which he introduced his amendment. However, I must bluntly say to him that his criticisms of the attitude of Conservative Members might have been better directed against Members on his own side, because the amendment reveals to the House the deep divisions within the Labour party on the question of support for failed asylum seekers. When he puts the matter to a vote, he will find that the Government whom he supports are wholly against his proposition and will do all that they can to vote it down. I therefore hope that in winding up he will reserve some of his critical remarks for his own Government, against whom he speaks with much force today.
      Clause 7, which has been the subject of much discussion—not least in Committee, where it occupied us for two or three sittings—deals with the position of failed asylum seekers in terms of their support. It is well known, but let me reaffirm it, that failed asylum seekers with dependent children receive asylum support until such time as they leave the UK or fail to comply with a removal direction. As stated in the explanatory notes, the clause provides that
      "if the Secretary of State certifies that, in his opinion, such a person has failed without reasonable excuse to take reasonable steps to leave the United Kingdom voluntarily or place himself in a position in which he is able to leave the United Kingdom …asylum support for the family will cease."
      My party does not disagree with that. It is proper, and fair to our system, that when people have exhausted their rights of appeal under asylum laws, benefits should be removed from them. That brings into sharp focus the whole issue of removals policy, where for the past few years the Government have been their own worst enemy in setting themselves a series of targets that they have never been able to reach and have had to drop one by one, instead introducing amnesties for failed asylum seekers. A parliamentary question that was answered on 11 December 2001 told me that the target for removals of failed asylum seekers for the year 2003–04 was 37,000. The Government utterly failed to meet that target and it has been dropped.
      The clause deals with the certification period. My probing amendments would make its operation more efficient and sensible. The period between the refusal of a last appeal and the removal direction is a kind of limbo. If the Government are to be able to certify at any stage during that period that the person concerned is not taking reasonable steps to leave the UK, they must be carefully scrutinised in that respect.
      A matter was briefly raised in Committee that I want to consider again today. What will the Government do about certification when a failed asylum seeker does not

      647
      have removal directions served on him or her for some reason? For example, under the Bill, many failed asylum seekers whom the Government will not remove could be certified in relation to support. One reason for riot removing them might be that the country of origin, as in the case of China, is unwilling to take back failed asylum seekers. Another reason might be practical difficulties, for example, a lack of airports in the specific part of the country from which the asylum applicant came.
      Let us consider Zimbabwe, to which the Government have suspended removals for some time. Only a week ago, I asked the Government about their removal policy to Zimbabwe. They replied that
      "although it would be safe for failed asylum seekers to return to Zimbabwe, our view at present is that in the wider context of the Government's position on Zimbabwe, it would be inappropriate forcibly to return them at this time."—[Official Report, 23 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 264W.]
      That prompts the question of what could happen to a failed asylum seeker who cannot be removed because of either the Government's direct policy of non-removal, as in the case of Zimbabwe, or the impracticality of removal.
      I raised the subject in Committee when I stressed that I believed that it was important to establish some form of appeal against the certification process. I am pleased that, as a result of my arguments, those of my hon. Friends and those in other parties in Committee, at the end of the debate, the Government said that it would be appropriate to introduce a limited form of appeal against cutting off benefits, but not removal. That shows the way in which Committees can work to the benefit of all concerned.
      Mr. Blizzard: From listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument so far, he appears to accept that there will inevitably be circumstances in which benefits to a failed asylum seeker have to be stopped. It is regrettable, but we will get to that stage. If that happens, what should happen to the children?
      Mr. Malins: That is a difficult question. The other side of the coin is the argument that one should never reach that stage and that the host country should continue to provide financial support indefinitely to failed asylum seekers. I cannot agree with that proposition. Although I hope that I always speak moderately, there is a question of parental responsibility. I wish that there were more opportunity to challenge a bad decision. but I have no reason to believe that the Government would act other than in good faith on the matter. If they act in good faith, they will not serve the certification notice until they are satisfied that the family concerned could and should go back to where they came from. They should not serve it when there is doubt, a suspended removals policy or when it is not practicable for a person to return to the relevant country.
      Hitherto, the notice has been served when removal directions have been given. That is an administrative act, effectively the last act in the chain, by which time the Government are in a position to remove. By bringing that forward and giving themselves an option to serve the notice earlier, when appeals have failed, the Government have created a period of limbo. I therefore seek from the Minister an assurance that difficult cases,
      648
      which are subject to the notice prior to a removal direction, can be tackled humanely, sensibly and properly.
      Mr. Blizzard: Effectively, the hon. Gentleman is therefore saying that he would not stop the benefit of a failed asylum seeker—he would only stop the benefit when the asylum seeker was ready to get on the plane back home. Is that what he is saying?
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood me, no doubt inadvertently. What I am saying is that there comes a time at which benefit must stop. If an asylum seeker has failed in their claim, their appeal and their final appeal, it does not seem wrong in principle to say that from that moment, the benefit should stop, rather than waiting sometimes for many months until the removal directions are given, which is much later in those proceedings—
      Mr. Blizzard: What about the children?
      Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman raises again the question of the children. I dare say that that is a question that he will raise with his Minister, as clearly, from what he has said tonight. he is bitterly at odds with his own Government—and he is not the only Labour Member at odds with the Government. I am looking forward to hearing him challenge his Minister in the strongest possible way. Let us see if he does so.
      Mr. Blizzard: As the hon. Gentleman noticed in Committee, I fully support the Government's measures on this point.
      Mr. Malins: In that case, the hon. Gentleman is playing devil's advocate and teasing me somewhat.
      Mr. Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we really need is a Government who can persuade people to go back if their claim has failed, and that the only satisfactory outcome is either legal settlement here or early return to another safe country whence the person came or to which they choose to go. What we are looking at is a failure to achieve that. Given the underlying reality—the Government's failure to persuade people to leave—this is a clumsy instrument, to which there is an ugly side.
      Mr. Malins: My right hon. Friend raises a good point. Again, he draws attention to the fact that the Government, over seven years, have not been able at any stage to put in place an effective removals policy. It is simply not good enough to answer a parliamentary question by talking in terms of targets of 33,000, 35,000 or 37,000 removals a year of failed asylum seekers, and to fail lamentably in that purpose. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who, I am sure, will contribute to this debate, will know as well as I do that at the moment only one in four failed asylum seekers are ever removed from this country. That is not a record of which any Government can be proud.
      Simon HughesHow, therefore, does the hon. Gentleman answer

      649
      the following question, which is the same one that I put to the Government? Let us imagine that someone has made an application that has failed and that they are willing to co-operate with voluntary return, which people who come to my surgery often say that they are. Before that happens, however, there is a period in which they have no income, and they may have children to support. There must be a humane and civilised response to that predicament. At the moment, none is on offer from the Government, and I do not hear any on offer from the Conservative Front Bench.
      Mr. Malins: What I say to the hon. Gentleman, whose expertise on this subject is well known and has been appreciated over many years on various Standing Committees, is that one looks to a Government to behave reasonably in each case. If someone is willing to go, is about to go and is making arrangements to go, and that is imminent, an argument exists for the Government not to serve the certification notice but to wait until they take the view that the person is refusing to go.
      Mr. Dawson: Have not the Government made it plain that while families are co-operating with the removal process they will not have social security benefits removed from them? Is not the hon. Gentleman setting out a position whereby the Conservative party accepts what its leader railed against some weeks ago—one in which children will have to be received into care because of the destitution of parents?
      Mr. Malins: Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that when my right hon. and learned Friend the leader of my party, who, incidentally, comes from a refugee background, raised the issue of children being taken into care, he was doing so following a briefing from Government circles-we never quite discovered who was responsible for it, because it was denied, I think—that the taking of children into care would in effect be used as a mechanism to encourage people to leave the country.
      We were strongly against that, and my right hon. and learned Friend was right to feel as he did. When the Bill was published the matter was not referred to, so the issue did not arise.
      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Is not the threatened removal of children still being used in that way in clause 7? Does it not pose the threat of their being taken into care if there is no voluntary departure?
      Mr. Malins: I have read clause 7. I know that the hon. Lady did not have the benefit of serving with us in Committee, but at no stage does clause 7 threaten the use of children as a tool.
      Annabelle Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Malins: I am anxious to make progress because many others want to speak, but I will give way to the hon. Lady, who served on the Committee.
      Annabelle Ewing: It was clear in Committee that although no provision in the Bill would directly require
      650
      such action, it might well occur as a consequence of the provision. That, I think, is what we have been talking about.
      Mr. Malins: The hon. Lady may be right, but if she is suggesting as a direct alternative that benefit for failed asylum seekers and their families should never cease, I cannot agree with her.
      One of my amendments would change the period relating to the cessation of benefit. I think it more appropriate to allow people 28 rather than 14 days following receipt of the certificate, so that they have more time in which to organise their lives. Another, minor amendment suggests that notice should be served not just on the applicant but on the applicant's legal representative. Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State to vary the specified period. Because I do not want him to be able to vary it to the extreme detriment of a failed asylum seeker by varying it to, say, one day, I have also tabled an amendment that will allow him to vary it by up to seven days—from, that is, the 28 days that I suggested in my earlier amendment. That would provide a little more leeway.
      I must tell the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre that my party cannot support amendment No. 23. I hear "Tut, tut" from a number of Labour Members, but they must understand that their own Government, to whom they are indebted, are violently against their proposition in any event. I hope that when they make critical remarks during the debate they will direct them at the Government, who will oppose them when the matter comes to a vote.
      Mr. Neil Gerrard: I support amendment No. 23, but I want to concentrate on amendment No. 33 and new clause 1, which bear my name and those of, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck).
      New clause I would repeal section 55 of the 2002 Act. Members who were present for the debate on that Bill will recall that we had only about 15 minutes in which to discuss the introduction of that provision. It appears we shall have rather less time on this occasion to debate a section that has left thousands destitute, on the streets with no support. When it came into effect, we were given numerous assurances. We were told that it was intended to deal with people who had entered the country, worked illegally and eventually claimed asylum, or people whose entry visas had expired and who had then claimed asylum—in other words, people who had been in the country for substantial periods. We were told that a reasonable amount of time would have to elapse before someone was refused support on the basis that a claim had been made late.
      We have seen what has actually happened. People have been refused support, in some cases after being in the country only a matter of hours. There have certainly been many cases of people being refused support when they have been in the country for just a few days. People have had to sleep rough on the streets or survive on the generosity of others in refugee communities who do not themselves have many resources to offer.
      Ms Karen Buck: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Refugee

      651
      Council survey of people left destitute under section 55? It found that 61 per cent. of such people were sleeping rough; 70 per cent. did not have regular food; and more than half had suffered serious health consequences as a result of being destitute.
      Mr. Gerrard: Yes, I have seen that survey, and one carried out by the Greater London authority. A similar picture has emerged from every survey that has been conducted.
      The other problem is the clogging up of the courts. We were told that, in October last year, about 60 challenges a week were going to the administrative courts, and the judges started to complain bitterly that it was clogging up the system and preventing other business from being dealt with.
      I am astonished by the latest development. In the past few days, the Home Office has sent a letter in which it says that unaccompanied asylum seeking children, who might have lived here for some time, will lie the subject of section 55 interviews on their 18th birthday—their 18th birthday present might be to lose all benefits and support. The child might even have been in care, so we need to reflect on our duties to children when they leave care. That letter was sent, despite the Home Affairs Committee report that was issued a week or so ago, which criticised what was happening, highlighted serious concerns and urged the Government to review the operation of section 55.
      Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that appalling matter to the House's attention. Any reasonable person reflecting on the issue will view it as an attempt wholly to undermine the Hillingdon judgment, which stated that young asylum seekers who had received benefits under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 would, on attaining adulthood, be eligible for support under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000.
      Mr. Gerrard: There are some interesting connections with that judgment. The measures in the letter will apply to children leaving care whose asylum claims have not been decided, rather than those who have been in care and have been given permission to stay.
      Finally—shall be brief because I know other hon.
      Members want to speak—we should think again about the reasons that people make late asylum claims. I can think of a whole string of reasons. People might have been trafficked or brought in by agents and told to behave in a certain way. Some people might have suffered trauma and understandably do not feel confident about making a claim the moment they step inside the country.
      From debates in Committee we know that the Government take the view that people who make late claims make weak claims. The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration expressed her view of section 55 by saying:
      "We wanted to bring about a change of behaviour on the reasonable assumption that somebody fleeing persecution, or in fear of his life, would want to claim asylum in the safe country in which he had arrived as soon as possible."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 January 2004; c. 430.]
      Again, the implication is that someone who claims in country is making a weak claim. We have had this debate during every asylum Bill since 1996, and the
      652
      Home Office's own statistics show that the rate of recognition of asylum claims made within the country for year after year is hardly different from—and in some years exceeds—the rate of recognition for people who apply at port.
      What is fundamentally wrong with section 55 is that, like some earlier measures such as vouchers, it penalises the genuine claimant. It was supposed to deter the abusive claimant, but in effect it penalises the genuine claimant. That is why section 55 is so absolutely immoral.
      I hope that it might be possible at an appropriate point during this evening's proceedings for a separate Division to be called on new clause 1 or amendment No. 33, which I hope will have the House's support.
      5.45 pm
      Mrs. Brooke: I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the remarks of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). We support new clause 1, and we feel that it is a great pity that it has been included in this group, which rather inhibits full discussion on it. We are particularly concerned about the 18-year-olds whom the hon. Gentleman rather emotionally described. Those possible 18th birthday presents are alarming.
      We have already heard about some of the consequences of taking away benefits, or of not giving them in the first place, and we should bear in mind the lessons that we have learned from section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 when considering the proposals in clause 7. The clause is about voluntary departure, and I was very impressed with the carrot approach of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who suggested that we do everything we can to persuade people that that is the best course for them. I am aware that there was much discussion in Committee on that, and that the Minister outlined a number of steps to be taken. Surely, however, there can never be enough steps where children are concerned. That is why I rise to speak today.
      Clause 7 uses the threat of making families destitute as an enforcement measure. However we look at that, it is a stick—a very crude one—and I greatly fear the unintended consequences of using it. The first will be that the fear of families about how they will survive, and whether they will be separated, will drive them underground. Surely, the health and welfare of all children in this country should be absolutely paramount. This measure seems to deviate from all the principles that most of us are here to defend.
      A second unintended consequence might be that some families will feel that they are doing the best thing by leaving their children here. One can easily see that that might happen. We hear about desperation in other countries, and parents who let their children come over with friends and relatives. That desperation exists. We cannot therefore say that the Bill will not have the consequence that children will end up in care: they will end up in care.
      That brings me to the iniquitous position that social workers will be in. As I understand it, when a family is destitute, the Children Act 1989 and the professional ethics of those working with the family require social workers to look first to relieve destitution, but clause 7 proposes the opposite. What should social workers do in

      653.
      those circumstances? The framework in clause 7 undermines the professional judgment and skills of social workers, and I can envisage them being put in impossible positions, perhaps being asked to remove children from their parents to increase the pressure on parents to leave the country.

      The United Kingdom stopped removing children from their families on the ground of poverty a long time ago. Where, then, are we going with clause 7? I appreciate that Conservative amendments attempt to improve it, but I sincerely believe that the only action to take tonight is to vote for the deletion of the clause. We should remember that we have a proud tradition of caring, including caring for children.
      Beverley Hughes: I want to deal first with amendment No. 23, which seeks, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) has just said, to delete clause 7. That would mean that we would be unable to withdraw support from families, no matter how much resistance they had shown or how much time and opportunity they had been given to leave the country once their claim had failed. We would therefore be in a very difficult position, both in terms of trying to achieve our policy objective and of explaining to our constituents how we could require people who were not legally in the country to leave but, if they refused to do so, we would have to continue to pay them to stay here indefinitely.
      I do not pretend that this is not a difficult issue. I find it very difficult, but, equally, I am absolutely convinced that we would not have a credible policy if we required people to leave when they should, but carried on paying them and providing them with accommodation at the taxpayer's expense when they refused to do so.
      Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
      Beverley Hughes: I shall give way in a moment.
      Briefly, that is the dilemma that we face, and we cannot avoid it simply by saying that we will carry on paying people regardless of their entitlement to be in the country.
      Mr. Dawson: Is it not the case that, in this country, we want families to do all sorts of things, and that we achieve that by persuasion and by offering them support? We do not introduce the sanction of removing their benefits. Is it not a counsel of despair, when we are dealing with hard-pressed people who have often been through desperate experiences, to say that the only means of amending their behaviour is to make them destitute?
      Beverley Hughes:That is not my intention. The intention of the clause is to persuade more families than at present that they should work with us to return home voluntarily. They should do so to avoid the potential trauma of an enforced return. I described in Committee how I had been out with an arrest team. The contemplation of immigration officers turning up in the middle of the night, getting children out of their beds
      654
      and taking them to a centre to be put on a plane as quickly as possible is something that I would want to avoid in all circumstances, if I could.
      The process that I outlined in Committee, which would preface the certification allowed in clause 7, is specifically designed to give families every opportunity to work with us voluntarily to ensure that we get as many people as possible to take a voluntary route home.
      Mr. Redwood: What other options have the Government examined in order to try to have their way with returns without having to be too brutal about it?
      Beverley Hughes: We have been examining these issues for some time, and have introduced a range of measures to try to increase the number of people returned. Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), we have achieved considerably more success than his Government ever did, with a record number of returns in 2003. However, we are dealing here with a particular group of people, and hon. Members will remember that in October last year the Home Secretary announced an exercise in which we agreed that families who had been here with children for three years or more from 2 October or before would be given indefinite leave to remain, provided they had no criminal record and met certain basic criteria. That recognised that, for families who have been here for some time, there are real humanitarian issues involved. For example, their children will have been in school, and the families will have become embedded in the community. When we announced that exercise, however, we said at the same time that families who have come into the system more recently and who have failed their asylum claims will have to return home. We will not continue the current practice of paying people indefinitely to stay.
      Annabelle Ewing rose—
      Mr. McWalter rose—
      Beverley Hughes: I shall just finish this point.
      Alongside the introduction of the clause in Committee, I outlined a process that would ensure that families had every opportunity to work with us. That process contains some of the elements and the spirit of what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has proposed—although not the detail; I do not pretend that it contains the range of counselling and other services that he suggested—in the sense that families would be invited for an interview and be able to discuss the options available and the nature of the process from then on. They would then have a series of up to three further letters setting out where they would be in the process, if they failed to co-operate, before certification took place.
      I am trying to stress that, if a family turn up to such an interview and co-operate with attempts to make arrangements for them to return, and if they go along and see the International Organisation for Migration or join one of the voluntary return programmes and work with the voluntary workers who are doing that work for us, they will be supported, no matter how long the process takes. If they co-operate with us to explore those

      655
      voluntary routes, and help us to re-document them and to get the wherewithal to remove them, even if we cannot enforce a removal to a particular country, we will not certify and we will not remove support.
      However, if a family fail to turn up to an interview, fail to respond to the letters that we write and do not keep their appointments or speak to the IOM, there will come a point when we have to ask the legitimate question: do we go on paying someone who is behaving like that, when they should be working with us to go home? This is difficult, but there must surely come a point at which people's eligibility to be supported at public expense in the face of their refusal to co-operate must come to an end.
      Annabelle Ewing: If it was deemed beyond the pale to include families in the withdrawal of support rules at the time of the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, surely it must remain beyond the pale to do so in March 2004.
      Beverley Hughes: I have not said that it was beyond the pale in 2002; those are the hon. Lady's words. As I have said, we have been exploring—using a step by step approac—measures that we need to take across the board to ensure that people whose claims fail return home.
      The process that I shall implement in relation to clause 7 is not only fair but comprehensive in trying to get families to the point at which they take the voluntary route. As I have said, if they co-operate with us, they will be supported for as long as that process takes. We shall not remove support if they are working with us.
      Ms Diane Abbott: Will the Minister give way?
      Beverley Hughes: No, I will not.
      Under amendments Nos. 16 and 19, support would be withdrawn from a failed asylum-seeking family 28 clays after receipt of the Secretary of State's decision to certify. That period could then be varied under regulations by up to seven days. We discussed this in Committee, and I hope that the hon. Member for Woking will accept that I made it clear then that, although the clause specifies a minimum 14-day period, the earlier stages that I have committed to before certification-which are involved in the process that I have set out-mean that there will be at least 28 days from appeal rights being exhausted to certification, and probably longer in many cases. I hope that he will therefore accept that we do not need to extend that period in the Bill.
      6 pm
      Under amendment No. 17, support could be withdrawn from a failed asylum-seeking family only when a copy of the Secretary of State's certificate was sent both to the person involved and their legal representative.
      Amendment No. 18 would reflect that by making it clear that a person should be regarded as having received the certificate only on the second day after it is sent, if it has been sent to him and to his legal representative. In Committee, I said that I have no
      656.
      difficulty with that principle but that it was not necessary to put it in the Bill. We will send letters to a legal representative, where there is one. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
      The Government amendments provide for an appeal by a failed asylum seeker to the asylum support adjudicator where the Secretary of State has certified that the family has failed, without reasonable excuse, to take reasonable steps to leave the UK voluntarily. I reiterate that the purpose of clause 7 is to encourage families to leave voluntarily, and I shall set out what the adjudicator might look at in such an appeal. We must remember that the appeal will not prevent removal. It is an appeal against certification, not a reopening of the asylum claim.
      In reaching a decision to certify, the Secretary of State will have concluded that the family, without reasonable excuse, had failed to take reasonable steps to leave the UK or to place themselves in a position where they could do so. The adjudicator would look at any arguments put forward by the family as to why they had not done so and whether the Secretary of State was right to conclude that the necessary steps had not been taken. That will provide further confidence in the overall process that we envisage for clause 7 and further reassurance that if support is withdrawn— expect that to occur in a minority of cases, if any—the decision is the correct one.
      The hon. Member for Woking asked about a situation in which we could not enforce removal but a voluntary return was possible. I partly answered him by saying that, even in those circumstances, provided a family were co-operating with us to seek a voluntary route, support would continue and that we would deal with those difficult circumstances case by case.
      We do not want families to be separated. We do not want people to be destitute. We want a managed system whereby people leave voluntarily after a fair hearing of their case and where people are clear that they cannot, and should not be able to, expect the state to support them indefinitely, regardless of the merits of their case.
      On new clause 1 and amendment No. 33ߞ
      Mr. lain Coleman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Beverley Hughes: No, I will not. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who tabled the new clause and the amendment, was trying to intervene. I would have given way to him, but I must respond to the debate if my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) will forgive me.
      Section 55 was designed to tackle a situation in which a significant number of people who had been in the country for some time were claiming asylum in order to get support. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow that there were initial problems in the operation of section 55, but we have made changes where these were required and sensible. I hope that he recognises that the new approach whereby people who apply within three days are granted support has made a difference.

      657.
      In recent weeks, about 50 per cent. of applicants have been given support under section 55 and there has been a considerable improvement in the number of reconsiderations; these are completed in 24 hours in 87 per cent. of cases.
      It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
      The House proceeded to a Division.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Lobby.
      The House having divided: Ayes 82, Noes 444.

      Division No. 62]

      [6:04 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Keetch, Paul

      Allan, Richard

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Austin, John

      Barnes, Harry

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Barrett, John

      Lamb, Norman

      Berth, rh A. J.

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      McDonnell, John

      Breed, Colin

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Burnett, John

      Moore, Michael

      Burstow, Paul

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Opik, Lembit

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Caton, Martin

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Chidgey, David

      Rendel, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Coleman, lain

      Salmond, Alex

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Cotter, Brian

      Shepherd, Richard

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Skinner, Dennis

      Doughty, Sue

      Stunell, Andrew

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Teather, Sarah

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Etherington, Bill

      Thurso, John

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Fisher, Mark

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Walter, Robert

      Gidley, Sandra

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Harvey, Nick

      Weir, Michael

      Heath, David

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Holmes, Paul

      Willis, Phil

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Wishart, Pete

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Mr. Neil Gerrard and

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Ms Karen Buck

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Allen, Graham

      Ainger, Nick

      Amess, David

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Alexander, Douglas

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      658

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Atheirton, Ms Candy

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clelland, David

      Bacon, Richard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Bailey, Adrian

      Coaker, Vernon

      Baird, Vera

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Baldry, Tony

      Collins, Tim

      Banks, Tony

      Colman, Tony

      Barker, Gregory

      Conway, Derek

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cooper, Yvette

      Battle, John

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Bayley, Hugh

      Corston, Jean

      Beard, Nigel

      Cranston, Ross

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Crausby, David

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Benn, rh Hilary

      Cummings, John

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

      Berry, Roger

      (Copeland)

      Betts, Clive

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Blackman, Liz

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Blair, rh Tony

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Blear Ms Hazel

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blunkett, rh David

      David, Wayne

      Blunt, Crispin

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & How den)

      Borrow, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Doran, Frank

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Brady, Graham

      Duncan, Alan (Butland)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Duncan Smith, rh lain

      Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

      Edwards, Huw

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Efford, Clive

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Evans, Nigel

      Browne, Desmond

      Fabricant, Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fallon, Michael

      Bryant, Chris

      Farrelly, Paul

      Burden, Richard

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Burgon, Colin

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Burnham, Andy

      Burns, Simon

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burnside, David

      Flight, Howard

      Burt, Alistair

      Flint, Caroline

      Butterfill, Sir John

      Flook, Adrian

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Forth, rh Eric

      Cairns, David

      Foster, rh Derek

      Cameron, David

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Casale, Roger

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Cash, William

      Francois, Mark

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Challen, Colin

      Gapes, Mike (llfordS)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirra/S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Gamier, Edward

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Chaytor, David

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Chope, Christopher

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Clappison, James

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Gilroy, Linda

      659

      Godsiff, Roger

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Goggins, Paul

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Goodman, Paul

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Grayling, Chris

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Greenway, John

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Kidney, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Grogan, John

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Gummer, rh John

      Hain, rh Peter

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Lafl, Mrs Jacqui

      Hammond, Philip

      Lammy, David

      Hanson, David

      Lansley, Andrew

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Leigh, Edward

      Hawkins, Nick

      Leslie, Christopher

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Heald, Oliver

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Healey, John

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Lidington, David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Linton, Martin

      Hendrick, Mark

      Loughton, Tim

      Hendry, Charles

      Love, Andrew

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Heppell, John

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Hermon, Lady

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Hesford, Stephen

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      McCabe, Stephen

      Heyes, David

      McCafferty, Chris

      Hinchliffe, David

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      MacDougall, John

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Mcintosh, Miss Anne

      Howard, rh Michael

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      McKechin, Ann

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      McNulty, Tony

      MacShane, Denis

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      McWalter, Tony

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      McWilliam, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Hutton, rh John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      lllsley, Eric

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Maples, John

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Jamieson, David

      Martlew, Eric

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Jenkins, Brian

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Miliband, David

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Miller, Andrew

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Mole, Chris

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      660

      Morley, Elliot

      Sheridan, Jim

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Simmonds, Mark

      Moss, Malcolm

      Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

      Mountford, Kali

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Soames, Nicholas

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Norman, Archie

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      O'Brien, Mike (TV Warks)

      Spring, Richard

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Squire, Rachel

      O'Hara, Edward

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Olner, Bill

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      O'Neill, Martin

      Steen, Anthony

      Organ, Diana

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Page, Richard

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Paice, James

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Paterson, Owen

      Streeter, Gary

      Pearson, Ian

      Stringer, Graham

      Picking, Anne

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pickles, Eric

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pickthall, Colin

      Swayne, Desmond

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Swire, Hugo (EDevon)

      Plaskitt, James

      Syms, Robert

      Pollard, Kerry

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pound, Stephen

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Prescott, rh John

      Timms, Stephen

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Purchase, Ken

      Trickett, Jon

      Purnell, James

      Truswell, Paul

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Randall, John

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Redwood, rh John

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

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

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Viggers, Peter

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Ward, Claire

      Waterson, Nigel

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Watts, David

      Rooney, Terry

      White, Brian

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Whittingdale, John

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ruane, Chris

      Wiggin, Bill

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wilkinson, John

      Ruffley, David

      Willetts, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Wills, Michael

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Wilshire, David

      Salter, Martin

      Winnick, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      (Macclesfield)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sheerman, Barry

      661

      Woolas, Phil

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Worthington, Tony

      Young, rh Sir George

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Gillian Merron and

      Wyatt, Derek

      Margaret Moran

      Question accordingly negatived.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendments made: No. 74, in page 8, line 40, after `of, insert 'a provision or.
      No. 75, in page 8, line 41, after '2002', insert 'other than paragraph 7A'.
      No. 76, in page 8, line 42, after 'Schedule', insert `other than paragraph 7A'.
      No. 77, in page 8, line 43, at end insertߞ
      () On an appeal under section 103 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) against a decision made by virtue of paragraph 7A of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) the adjudicator may, in particularߞ

      (a) annul a certificate of the Secretary of State issued for the purposes of that paragraph;

      (b) require the Secretary of State to reconsider the matters certified.'.ߞ[[Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 11

      UNIFICATION OF APPEAL SYSTEM
      Mr. Mark Oaten: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 11, line 6, leave out Clause 11.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Amendment No. 93, in page 11, line 25, at end insertߞ
      '(5A) A party to the Tribunal's decision may apply within 7 days to the High Court or, in Scotland, to the Court of Session for review of the Tribunal's decision on the ground that the Tribunal made an error of law.
      (5B) Where an application is made under this subsectionߞ

      (a) it shall be determined by a single judge by reference only to written submissions, unless the court on receiving such submissions is of the opinion that there are exceptional reasons for an oral hearing;

      (b) the judge may affirm or reverse the Tribunal's decision, or remit for rehearing to the Tribunal;

      (c) if, in any application to the High Court. the judge thinks that the application had no merit he shall issue a certificate under this paragraph.

      (5C) Where the High Court or in Scotland the Court of Session affirms or reverses a review under this section a party to the review may bring an appeal as a point of law within 7 days—

      (a)where the original decision was that of a judge of the Court of Session in Scotland to the Inner House of that Court; or

      (b)in any other case, to the Court of Appeal.

      (5D) An appeal under subsection (5C) may be brought only with the permission of—

      (a)the court that made it, or

      (b)the court referred to in subsection (5C)(a) or (b) if the High Court or Court of Session in Scotland refuses permission.

      (5E) An application made under subsection (5D)(b) must be made within 7 days of the refusal of permission to appeal by the High Court or Court of Appeal:
      Amendment No. 92, in page 11, line 26, leave out subsection (6).
      Amendment No. 31, in page 12, line 10, leave out subsection (7).
      Amendment No. 32, in page 12, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 13.
      Amendment No. 94, in page 12, line 11, leave out `Tribunal's' and insert 'statutory'.
      Amendment No. 95, in page 12, line 12, leave out `(whether statutory or inherent)'.
      Amendment No. 96, in page 12, line 13, at end insertߞ
      'additional to the statutory jurisdiction exercised by the court'.
      Government amendments Nos. 78 to 80. Amendment No. 97, in page 12, line 35, at end insertߞ
      'provided that the immigration decision makes it clear at the time that deportation is capable of being a consequence of the decision'.
      Government amendment No. 81.
      Amendment No. 98, in page 26, line 19 [Schedule 1], at end insertߞ
      '(e) is a lay member'.
      Amendment No. 22, in page 33, line 28 [Schedule 2], leave out 'supervising' and insert 'organising training for'.
      New clause 8-Initial decisionsߞ
      (1) Initial decisions by the Secretary of State on asylum applications shall be made and notified to the applicant within six weeks of the application being made.
      (2) Notice of appeal from the decision of the Secretary of State to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ("the Tribunal")ߞ

      (a) must be made in writing;

      (b) must be lodged with the Tribunal within 14 days of the decision appealed against, and

      (c) must list all the grounds on which the appeal is made.

      (3) Within 14 days of receipt of the notice of appeal the Tribunal shall hold a direction hearing at which all parties to the appeal shall be present.'.
      Mr. Oaten: It is important to remove clause 11, because in it the Government propose to take away the ability to refer a tribunal's decision to a higher court. We argued about the principle for a long time in Committee. Whatever people's views may be on the Government's intentions about streamlining the tribunal system-there may be some merit in considering how the different elements could be brought together-there is widespread concern about removing the right of appeal to a higher court. We also have concerns about the proposal to give unprecedented powers to the president of the tribunal.
      We will strongly defend the principle of having a tolerant society in relation to asylum and immigration, but the Bill goes even beyond that, attacking some important principles for justice as a whole. It upsets the constitutional checks and balances that we have had in this country for many years. By removing the right to go to a higher court, we could create numerous miscarriages of justice.

      663.
      There is a miscomprehension about why the Government are seeking to do this. There is an assumption that any individual who wants to take a case to a higher court must be trying to abuse the system. There is very little acknowledgement from the Government that there may be genuine cases and genuine reasons why individuals would want and need to have their cases taken further. It is not all about allowing abuse or delaying tactics.
      Since the Bill left Committee, we have had the report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee, which contains some powerful arguments for retaining the ability to refer to a higher court. The most compelling was in the conclusions, where it says:
      "An ouster clause as extensive as the one suggested in the Bill is without precedent. As a matter of constitutional principle some form of higher judicial insight of lower Tribunals and executive decisions should be retained. This is particularly true when life and liberty may be at stake.ߞ
      That is an extremely powerful quotation from a respected Committee, not only tackling the principle but pointing out that the Government are choosing to break it on such a critical issue as an individual's ability to stay here and not be returned to a life-threatening situation.
      Ms Abbott: Could not the clause provide a precedent for exempting all sorts of Executive and administrative tribunals from understanding, applying or being governed by the law?
      Mr. Oaten: The hon. Lady is absolutely right: this could be the thin end of the wedge. There are a couple of circumstances in which we do not have the ability to refer to a higher court, but those are very limited and are concerned with security and terrorism. This would be the first incidence of such arrangements applying outside such circumstances. and it would be a serious erosion of the principle. I hope that the House, when it divides later, will stake out its principles on the issue.
      Peter Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any respected lawyer or lawyers' group supporting the Government's position on this ouster clause?
      Mr. Oaten: They have certainly not been in contact with me, but it will be interesting to hear from the Constitutional Affairs Minister whether he has been able to find someone to defend the Government's position. Very few organisations, within Parliament or without. are in support. I have already quoted the Constitutional Affairs Committee, and we have similar evidence from other cross-party groups that have come together to condemn the proposal.
      If the principle were not enough—and I argue that it should be-there are more practical reasons why we need to retain the current system. The Minister will be aware that we had endless debates in Committee, with pie charts and graphs, about the number of mistakes currently being made. There is no point in rehearsing those again, because we come from a different perspective, but it is my judgment that there are still a considerable number of mistakes, and a considerable number of cases being overturned in the higher court. While that continues, there is a practical as well as a principled argument for maintaining a form of appeal to a higher court.
      664
      Until the Government can demonstrate that they have such a secure system that no cases are overturned at a later stage, it will be a very grave move to remove the ability to have that further appeal. For cases involving certain countries, the number that are overturned is considerably higher than the norm: 35 per cent. of cases involving Somalia or Zimbabwe are changed or reviewed at a later stage. If the Government are to remove such judicial review, they will need to demonstrate that they have introduced a better system whereby such mistakes are not made. I am not convinced by what we have seen of their proposals that they have achieved that, but even if I were to be convinced, surely the logic would be to let the changes bed down and review them in a couple of years' time before removing the ultimate ability to challenge decisions in a higher court.
      Mr. Patrick Hall: Even if the quality of the first decisions became perfect-such a system does not existߞone would still require the ability to review those decisions, because human beings make mistakes. We will always have a need to do that.
      Mr. Oaten: I agree. In a sense, the hon. Gentleman makes a stronger argument that I do. Having established the principle, I was trying to move on to a practical argument on the numbers game, but frankly, in dealing with issues of principle and justice we should not get into the numbers game. because even one or two cases of injustice would be unacceptable.
      I want to draw the Minister's attention to what Mr. Justice Collins said in the recent case of R (Konan).
      The judgment was made on 21 January, and it is worth noting what Mr. Justice Collins—a judge at the front line who made a judgment on the very issues in question—said in that case:
      "It is a cautionary tale since it shows that decisions of the defendant's officials and the appellate authorities can be wrong and that there is a need for a judicial assessment … If the possibility of judicial review had not existed the claimants would wrongly have been returned to the Ivory Coast."
      That practical example took place three or four weeks ago. The judge's ability to decide to refer the case to a higher court resulted in people not being sent back to a country where they would not have been safe, and many such practical examples exist.
      6.30 pm
      I offer a third argument to the Under-Secretary for why we need to keep the existing process in place. If the principle underlining the current arrangements and the practical day-to-day cases are not sufficient reasons for having judicial review, surely another compelling argument in its favour is that it has been proven to be a useful tool for testing law and making it better. I should have thought that, occasionally, the Government would welcome that opportunity because some asylum and immigration issues, and some interpretations of the international conventions, are complex. The conventions have been described as "living instruments"—they are constantly tested and amended. It is a long-established principle that everyone in the system should be able to refer such convention changes to a higher court for clarification and guidance. For the

      665
      sake of the clarity of such conventions, there is a compelling argument for retaining the ability to refer to a higher court.
      Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the numbers game, is it not the case that in 2002, the divisional court threw back 260 cases as having been wrongly decided under the high test that had to be applied? If the Bill had been enacted at that time, all those people would have gone back to possible persecution, or even death.
      Mr. Oaten: The hon. and learned Gentleman uses those numbers to make a powerful argument, but even if only one rather than 200 people were affected, the principle of referral would be worth defending not only for the individuals concerned, but because it could be a useful tool to allow the Government and agencies to test and develop new law.
      The Government have suggested merging the various stages of the system into a tribunal. I shall especially focus on the power of the president because those of us who believe in the ability to test such matters would want an individual who could help us to access advice from a higher court. However, the Government's proposals restrict the power of the president, or rather give him so much power that he does not have to be bound by any higher court to which he may or may not choose to refer cases. At the moment, the Bill gives the president incredible power to decide whether to refer a case up. The fact that he or she will not be bound by a court's decision is unacceptable.
      In Committee, the Under-Secretary said that he thought that it would be very unlikely that the president would seek advice yet ignore it. As a general principle of good practice, I would prefer a measure to provide for that to be in the Bill, rather than relying on an intervention in Committee. Surely we should make good law in this country under that principle. However, an additional problem is that there might well be cases in which the president would be reluctant to refer a case to a higher court. One can imagine that league tables might be produced, so the president could think that referring cases on would be seen as a criticism of tribunal staff. The measure represents an unsatisfactory means of providing the ability to refer cases to a higher court for rulings. Paragraph 54 of the report published a couple of days ago by the Constitutional Affairs Committee says:
      "We see no reason why the President of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal should have the sole right to decide whether an appeal lies to a higher court or why the Court of Appeal should not be trusted with the discretion to take over particular cases if it saw fit."
      The Committee expressed concerns about the way in which the president will operate, so if the Under-Secretary were to look again at the powers of the president, it might go some way toward reassuring Liberal Democrats.
      Finally, I should like to refer to the way in which tribunals will operate and their ability to review their work, irrespective of the president. The internal review systems suggested by the Government seem to be weak. In the majority of cases, it will only be possible to accept written evidence for the purposes of review, and oral
      666
      hearings may be held only in exceptional cases. If the Government wish to go down such a route, they could reassure us by strengthening a tribunal's ability to review a case. Clear arguments proving why an oral hearing may be necessary in some circumstances should be set out in the Bill. The Government again seem to want to restrain the ability to test and review decisions.
      Surely the way forward would be to introduce a system that does not require a lengthy process and does not., in the first place, lead to the current number of wrong decisions. Liberal Democrats support the Government's intention of speeding up the system, but we disagree with the route that they are taking. We want better quality decisions to be taken in the first place, which requires better information on each relevant country, improved decisions and better training of individuals. The Government should consider putting in place a package of measures to try to speed up the system and produce better decisions before introducing more draconian measures that change the judicial process.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: In reminding my hon. Friend that all the provisions will affect not only asylum applicants, but immigration applicants, will he note that the Constitutional Affairs Committee recorded that the Government cause more delay to immigration applications than applicants?
      Mr. Oaten: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful argument for examining different systems before starting to mess with the principles of evidence. Select Committees and others have plenty of evidence that could give the Government ideas about ways to speed up and improve the system. As the Select Committee on Home Affairs said:
      "The real flaws in the system appear to be at the stage of initial decision-making, not that of appeal."
      It recommended that the appeals proposals should not be brought into force
      "until the statistics show a clear reduction in the number of successful appeals at the first-tier, adjudication level."
      Again, that is a strong argument for putting in place other measures before making changes such as those proposed by the Government.
      Of course, the Government have already put in place measures to speed up the system, because they clearly want to avoid delays in cases going to a higher court, which we support. For example, they put in place a four-week system to determine whether they could speed up the process by making such a change. That has been in operation for about a year, which is a short time, but the evidence on that new system will not be evaluated or assessed because it might not be needed if their new proposals bed down effectively.
      The Government's intention of speeding up the process is worthy, and we would support a speeded up and fair process, but they seem to be prepared to break with long-standing principles that go way beyond immigration and asylum to achieve that. Will the Under-Secretary reflect that rather than trying to get a few quick headlines in the Daily Express and the tabloid papers, it would be better to reject the option of making the proposed changes and to put in place practical measures for the next year to find out whether they

      667
      could achieve some of the Government's aims? Surely that approach would be more mature, sensible and in proportion with what the Government regard as a problem than making such fundamental changes that could have wider implications beyond immigration and asylum.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I shall be brief because I appreciate that several hon. Members wish to speak. In all the dreary and depressing history of this Administration's assaults on fundamental civil liberties, this measure is the worst by a streak. It is literally incredible that we should come to the House to contemplate removing all the protection of the law from a vulnerable minority who face the possibility of persecution, torture and death.
      The measure would never get through this House, let alone the other place, if it affected British people. The only reason why it is being advanced by the Government—otherwise, the Government themselves would not survive—is that it applies to foreigners.
      In putting this proposal forward, not only are the Government guilty of an iniquity in the House, but they have turned their back full-square on the long theology of the Labour movement, which has always maintained that justice is not an individual right given to individual people, but a universal ߞthat it applies to us all, and is our greatest collective asset. A diminution of others' rights is a diminution of our rights; what diminishes them diminishes me, and diminishes all of us in this place.
      That is why I could never, never vote for anything that even resembled clause 11. I hope and trust that there will be many who will vote against the Bill in the Lobby. do not suggest for a moment that we will succeed, but when we vote in that way, we will be passing a message to the House of Lords that those who vote according to their conscience in the House of Commons are universal in their determination to defeat that part of this legislation.
      We all accept that this is not a numbers game, but a matter of the highest possible principleߞbut while we are talking numbers, I should point out that in 2002, even given the enormous difficulty of obtaining judicial review and a successful application before the divisional court, the divisional court threw back 260 cases—cases in which decisions had been made that should never have been taken by any reasonable tribunal. Under the regime that will exist if this Bill becomes law in its present form, the people behind those 260 cases, and all their families, would have been sent back to face persecution, torture or death.
      That is the enormity of what we are being asked to pass. It is my abiding faith in the Houses of Parliament that leads me to believe that at the end of the day, the measure will not pass—that ultimately, it will not pass through this House, and will not pass through the House of Lords either. If we do pass it into law, it will be an object of shame both for this House and for this Government, which they will never, in history, survive.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said that it was a principle underpinning the Labour party and the Labour movement that people in this country should not be treated differently according
      668

      to whether they are citizens or not. That is a principle to which I too, as a Conservative, have no difficulty in adhering. That all in this country should be subject to the rule of law, and have the protection of the law, is a fundamental right, and fundamentally underpins the ethos and the ethics on which this country was built and developed.
      In clause 11 the Government propose to do something unprecedented. Not even in the darkest days of the second world war, when aliens were being interned, and were subject to administrative procedures to bring that about, was the supervision of the higher courts removed from the process to prevent wrongs from being righted if necessary, and rights from being preserved. Yet that is what the Government propose to do.
      The only justification being suggested is that the administrative procedures that the Government seek to substitute will provide adequate protection. I accept that the Government face a problem with the appeals system. It is obvious that it needs to be streamlined to make it more efficient. I also accept that the system has been abused by a minority of unscrupulous lawyers, who take the view that by spinning out the proceedings in undeserving cases they can delay the inevitable, and even that the inevitable may therefore not happen, because the Government will lose the will to implement the decision and deport the person whose asylum application has failed.
      6.45 pm
      However, we must not lose sight of the fact that many of the delays in the asylum system have nothing to do with the courts, but stem from the Government's administrative failure to cope with the numbers of asylum seekers. We know that 20 per cent. of decisions made by the Home Office executive officers are not made within the two-month period prescribed. Is that surprising, when we consider their lowly status, the fact that they start on a salary of £15,000 per annum, and that they are regarded as wholly qualified to do their work after 27 days? It may not be surprising, either, in those circumstances, to note that many of their decisions turn out to be wrong.
      The Minister may care to comment on this, but I understand that the Home Office presenting officers attend only about 60 per cent. of adjudication hearings. Is it surprising, therefore, that the adjudicators often overturn decisions? As the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) rightly said, the system leading up to the tribunal stage is not only slow, but is entirely in the hands of the Government who run it. There is no point in the Government complaining about the system; it is their system.
      In my view, underlying the Government's proposal are complaints about the attitudes of the judiciary. The truth is that the Government do not like the judiciary. They do not like its independence or its attitudes. When Lord Falconer was appointed Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, why did the Home Secretary say to him, in an aside that was perfectly visible on television, "Now at last we will get the judges we want"? That is the reality of the Home Secretary's hostility to the judiciary and to the independence of its decision making.

      669
      Furthermore, there is not much point in the Government complaining about the judiciary's decisions in asylum cases, when most of those decisions have been founded on the Human Rights Act 1998, which the Government themselves chose to incorporate in our law.
      In 1999, exceptional leave to remain was granted in only 2,465 cases; in 2002, there were 20,135 such cases. That was because the introduction of the Human Rights Act brought a whole new range of considerations to the way in which asylum cases had to be considered, leading to a completely different set of results. I do not imagine that the Minister wishes to criticise the judiciary for having been instrumental in helping that process along. If he does, I simply say to him that the Government should not have incorporated those rights in our law. It was his Government who chose to do that. There is no point in blaming the judges for interpreting the law, when Parliament asks them to do just that.
      Mr. Garnier: The Government have at last got round the inadequacy of their own legislation by cynically placing in this Bill subsection (5) of proposed new section 108A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which disapplies the Human Rights Act from the decisions of the tribunal. Not only did they cynically introduce the Act to British law so that they could say, "We're bringing rights home," but when judges apply the legislation that they so joyously put on our statute book, they disapply it, for the very reasons that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
      Mr. Grieve: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friendߞyet I understand that the Home Secretary has certified that he believes the Bill to be compatible with the Human Rights Act. The Government's approach is a complete mystery. Indeed, I have to sayߞand my hon. and learned Friend may well agree with meߞthat the provision will drive a cart and horses through the Government's attempts to make this ouster clause work. One of the things that I intended to say to the Minister was that I do not think that the ouster clause as drafted stands a hope in heaven of surviving judicial scrutiny. It will probably lead to a major confrontation between the judiciary and the Executive.
      It will not lead to the streamlined procedure that the Government want.
      I said that the Government do not want the judges to rule, yet the proposal is entirely a product of their Marxist pastߞ[Interruption.] Yes, it is. The more I watch this Government and see that, having abandoned any hint of Marxism in economics, they long for centralised bureaucratic solutions to the problems that confront the country, the more convinced I become that they wake up in the middle of the night believing that those bureaucratic solutions can change the world for the better. I, however, do not believe that.
      I have some suggestions that will allow the Government to solve their problem. We have tabled a series of amendments—amendments Nos. 93. 92, 94, 96, 22, and new clause 8. If they were accepted, they would provide a framework by which it would be possible for the Government to achieve their aim of streamlining the legislation while keeping it compatible with the Human Rights Act and, indeed, making it work properly.
      670
      Amendment No. 93 respects the idea that the tribunal and the adjudicator should be collapsed into one, to speed up the process. If that is what the Government want to do, so be it. Much will depend on the quality of the tribunal, to which I shall return in a moment. In addition, we would remove what is frankly the completely ludicrous notion that the tribunal can review its own decisions. It is sometimes possible to go back to a judge under the slip rule to ask him to review his judgment or order, but it is extraordinary that the Government consider it acceptable that the mechanism of appeal with which they are going to justify the Bill as Human Rights Act-compatible is to ask a tribunal that has just made a wrong decision to review it. That is nonsense. As soon as the Minister and the Government understand that, we can start to put the legislation into a sensible shape.
      We propose establishing a statutory appeal procedure to a High Court judge. It would be streamlined, with seven days to appeal, which would be possible without causing injustice. The appeal would usually be dealt with on paper, but with the possibility of the judge calling the case in for oral hearing if necessary. The judge would either affirm or alter the decision, or remit it back to the tribunal if further hearings of fact were required. That sensible approach respects the fact that the higher judiciary should have an input into the process. It would also ensure that the appeal is not conducted by the same people who heard the original case.
      Mr. Richard Bacon: As my hon. Friend has not departed too far from the subject to human rights compatibility, will he invite the Minister to confirm whether the Government still assert that the Bill is human rights-compatible? The old version of the Bill clearly sets out on page 1 the certificate to which he referred. It says that M r. Secretary Blunkett has asserted that the provisions
      "are compatible with the Convention rights",
      but there is no such reference in the clean version of the Bill, at least not on the front page.
      Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the Bill as printed, after its passage through Committee, is no longer Human Rights Act-compatible, the Minister should have told us that from the outset. I take it that in the absence of that statement, he still considers it compatible. My hon. Friend is right, however, that it no longer features in the Bill. I suppose, therefore, that the Government are proposing legislation that is not so compatible with the Human Rights Act. I will give way to the Minister if he wishes to say whether it is a printer's error or the Government's new view of the Bill.
      Mr. Malins: Which is it?
      Mr. Grieve: The Minister does not want to intervene, so we are left with our quiet speculation.
      Mr. John Gummer: As the Minister is not prepared to respond, does my hon. Friend agree that if the Human Rights Act is important in a case, it is precisely a case in which a country deals with foreigners, because that is when many countries

      671
      have double standards? It happens to be true in Britain that we have not had double standards. The Bill is the first time we have had those double standards, which came into being the very moment the Government ditched their Human Rights Act, which brought the convention on human rights into our law.
      Mr. Grieve: My right hon. Friend is right. It is also right that we should call a spade a spade and consider people's views with care. Many people—perfectly reasonable people—would often apply different criteria to foreigners and nationals. It is precisely for that reason that the protection of the law is so important. It is because emotions often drive people in an opposite direction that a system of law is constructed to ensure that mischief does not result from it. That is what is so unpleasant about what the Government want to do. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was right: if the Government can do that for this measure, what next? The comment on the second world war—
      "First they came for the Jews"
      and then for another group, and another ߞis correct. Those who are most unpopular in society need the greatest protection. I always thought that that underlay the Human Rights Act, however unpopular and uncomfortable some of the decisions might occasionally be. Perhaps the Minister will intervene if he disagrees, but in the meantime I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley).
      Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) for their contributions, because subsection (5) of proposed new section 108A relates to anything that a tribunal may have done in which there is a
      "lack of jurisdiction … irregularity … error of law … breach of natural justice, or … any other matter".
      If this is the first time the Government are suspending the Human Rights Act, and if it is a convention of the House that the declaration of compatibility with that Act is not left in the Bill on Report, can we have a new convention that puts it back in any case in which the Government propose to lift the protection of the Human Rights Act, which we are told matters so much?
      Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Again, I wait to hear how the Minister intends to deal with that.
      David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Grieve: If I could make some progress-other hon. Members wish to participate.
      On the other provisions in amendment No. 93, once the review has taken place in front of the single judge, there should be a mechanism to appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal. We have again tried to streamline that by introducing the period of seven days. The appeal has to be done with the leave of a single judge or the leave of the Court of Appeal. From there, it can go to the House of Lords in the ordinary way if there is a point of law of general public importance. How would that procedure hold things up?
      672
      I suspect that the mechanism of going to the single judge will be just as quick as asking the tribunal to review its own decision, by the time it has been weighed down with dozens of such applications. We know that the Court of Appeal heard only five asylum cases in the year from 1 October 2002 to 30 September 2003, and only four asylum cases were heard by the House of Lords. Admittedly, there were many more in the previous year, but that reflected the fact that the adjudicators and the tribunal were getting their decisions consistently wrong. I need the Minister to justify his proposal if he is to persuade me that allowing an appeal to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords would put a spanner in the works, especially as we propose a streamlined procedure to facilitate the process.
      On the Human Rights Act exclusions and the question of removal, I shall return to a point that I made earlier, which bears repeating: if the Government persist with clause 11, the judiciary will undoubtedly find every conceivable device to get round its provisions. Having examined it, I can think of a number of ways in which that might be done.
      7 pm
      The Minister may care to reflect on the point that if the procedures are irregular and flawed, it might be argued that there are no procedures. If there are no procedures, an application for habeas corpus will be entertained by the courts when somebody is about to be taken away in a van and put on a plane, and the mud will be all over the Government's face. The Government are being unreasonable and should accept our offer of a helping hand rather than persisting with a ludicrous policy.
      Amendment No. 22 deals with schedule 2, which is very worrying and is linked to clause 11. Schedule 2 provides for the supervision of judges by other members of the judiciary. I am not sure whether I understand what that means, but I have always understood that every judge is independent once they have been appointed. A judge may, of course, consult colleagues or discuss matters with them over dinner, but his decisions are ultimately independent.
      Explaining that point in Committee, the Minister said:
      "We propose that senior members of the judiciary will be responsible for supporting a group of approximately 10 immigration judges. The senior judiciary will play a role in communicating information and case law and will be available if the immigration judge wishes to discuss any issue. They will play a role in ensuring that the judges receive appropriate training and mentoring, should they need it. That is consistent with judicial independence and is essential to allow asylum and immigration tribunals to function effectively."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 20 January 2004; c. 317.]
      New Labour justice involves a judiciary that is no longer independent and that is so orchestrated from the president downwards that it achieves the ends that the Government want. The Minister should be ashamed of introducing such a proposal.
      It would be sensible to accept amendment No. 22, which would resolve the problem by changing the wording and removing the mischief. I do not mind if judges want to consult each other, but I object to the setting up of a parallel legal system based on new

      673
      principles designed to achieve an administrative end. Before 1997, people said that the Prime Minister thought that Britain was too feudal and that he wanted to make it Napoleonic, but we are getting Napoleonic with knobs on—an administrative system that is alien to this country, which does not refer to our historic freedoms and which completely undermines judicial independence.
      Finally, I commend new clause 8 to the House; the Government should adopt it if they want to speed up the system. If the Government succeed in mastering the asylum system—there are some signs that they have made recent improvements—new clause 8 sets out a timetable for the Secretary of State. It states:
      "Initial decisions … shall be made and notified to the applicant within six weeks of the application being made. Notice of appeal … must be lodged with the Tribunal within 14 days of the decision appealed against … Within 14 days of receipt of the notice of appeal the Tribunal shall hold a direction hearing"
      Those are simple ways further to streamline the process.
      Justice delayed is justice denied—the saying is old and, perhaps, trite, but it is true. If the Minister wants the official Opposition's help in speeding up justice, we will do what we can to help him and to cure abuses. If, however, the Government seek to undermine the principle of an independent judiciary, which is what clause 11 does, he should not be surprised when we resist him.
      Tony Wright: I shall be brief and have one point only to make. I have supported almost everything that the Government have tried to do to sort out the asylum system—it needed sorting out, and they have rightly set about the task with some vigour. I am also happy to join in the occasional jibe against lawyers—the jibes are good fun and always contain a grain of substance. However, there comes a point at which all of us who are not lawyers but who care about how the system works must ask ourselves whether we are being asked to go a step too far.
      I have examined what the Constitutional Affairs Committee told the House and what the Joint Committee on Human Rights told both Houses—their use of language is not restrained; it could hardly be more vigorous—in drawing our attention to the importance of the Government's proposal. We have always adopted the principle that higher courts review the actions of tribunals in this country. That keeps the tribunal system on course and enables us to run it, because we know that it can be disciplined by the purview of a higher court, which is a constituent of what we have become used to describing as "the rule of law".
      When the Government ask us to dispense with the rule of law by collapsing the appellate system into a single appeal body and by removing the appeal system from the purview of the higher courts, we are entitled to ask, "Why are you doing that?" As it happens, I am not one of those who simply say, "If it can be shown to be a constitutional precedent, I shall be against it." I favour breaking with all kinds of constitutional precedents on all kinds of fronts—I can give the Government a little list, if they would like one. However, I am not prepared to sign up to the removal of an appeal layer unless overwhelming justification can be given.
      674
      Authoritative Committees of this House have explored the question whether the Government have an overwhelming case, and they have found that the Government do not have one. That places an onus on all Members of Parliament who broadly support the direction in which the Government want to travel to say, "Hang on a minute. Be sure that you are not asking the House to do something disproportionate. Be sure that the measure does not help to undermine the rule of law on this front, and potentially on a wider front too, just for Executive convenience." It is not always easy to tease out whether points of principle underpin the matters that we discuss because we have a habit of trying to make everything into a fundamental point of principle in order to sustain our case, but there are moments when such principles are clearly at stake, and clause 11 raises one such principle.
      We know that the measure will never be accepted by the other place, and the Government have presumably factored that into their thinking. As I see it, there is no way that legislation this fundamental will be accepted by the other place, so the Bill will presumably return to this House in a form that the Government think that they can get through, which will involve its amendment. The appeal system that we end up with will presumably be more streamlined than the current system, but it will be something other than the Government's current proposal.
      That may seem to many people to be a perfectly satisfactory outcome—indeed, that is how we do things.
      From the point of view of the House, however, that is not an acceptable way to proceed. The Government should not ask the House to agree something that raises fundamental points of constitutional importance, on the assumption that what will eventually be agreed will be something other than the original proposal. That is profoundly damaging for the House and for the reputation of our system. If for no other reason, I ask the Government to think again about the clause.
      Mr. Garnier: At the outset of their respective speeches, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) both claimed political ownership of a fondness for the rule of law and respect for our system of justice, and they were right to do so. Both our parties have a long and proud tradition of respecting the rule of law. I paraphrase what they said, because I am trying to be as quick as I can. Respect for the rule of law is not a matter that belongs to either party. I hope we share it, irrespective of our party political allegiances, and I am reasonably sure that the hon. and learned Member for Medway would hold those views regardless of whether he happened to be a Labour Member of Parliament. I know for a fact that my hon. Friend does as well.
      What the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) said at the beginning of his remarks also struck me as true and right, when he referred to the report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee led by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). It is, in some senses, remarkable that we have to remark on what that report says. It points out things that to me and, I hope, to most civilised Members of the House, are unarguable and which ought to be wholly unremarkable and uncontroversial. Why do they need restating?

      675
      Because we are dealing with a very strange Government indeed, who seem to have forgotten everything and learned nothing.
      I shall do the Minister a favour by not referring to anything he said in Committee. The Government have crafted clause 11, which flies in the face of the accepted standards that the hon. and learned Member for Medway, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and the hon. Member for Cannock Chase take for granted. They are seeking to do what, for example, Lord Scarman in the case of the Crown v. Home Secretary ex parte Khawaja—a 1984 case in the House of Lords—remarked upon. He said:
      "Every person within the jurisdiction enjoys the equal protection of our laws. There is no distinction between British nationals and others. He who is subject to English law is entitled to its protection."
      He was not saying anything that was new. The great Lord Mansfield, in setting free the black slaves in the 18th century, recognised exactly the same. Judges in the 18th century, the late 20th century or today do not recognise the colour, creed, nationality or origins of the applicant for asylum before them—or, at least, they should not.
      The Government cynically introduced into our domestic law the Human Rights Act 1998, which brings the European convention on human rights into our law, and now they are prepared to strip it out completely. I shall analyse clause 11 briefly, as it demonstrates the eminent good sense of amendment No. 93 and new clause 8 which were moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. I do not need to repeat what he said. I ask the House to consider amendment No. 93 and new clause 8, whereby controls can be placed upon bad appeals, worthless appeals and time-wasting appeals by means of a requirement for permission and for speed, while none the less maintaining an attachment to justice and the rule of law.
      7.15 pm
      We should bear in mind the content of clause 11. First, there is a requirement that the tribunal
      "shall review its decision on an appeal if requested to do so by a party to the appeal."
      That is presented as though it were a tremendous bonus to the people of this country that if the court is requested to review its own decision on an appeal, it will consider whether to do so. If that is a bonus, the benefits are soon removed when one turns to the following page, page 12, which states:
      "On a review by the Tribunal of its decision on an appeal the Tribunal"—
      reviewing itself, of course—
      "may act under subsection (6)(b) only if satisfied that the decision would have been different but for a clear error of law by the Tribunal."
      So if the tribunal is not persuaded that it has made a mistake, it will not enter into any sort of review.
      Matters get worse. The Bill states:
      "No court shall have any supervisory or other jurisdiction (whether statutory or inherent) in relation to the Tribunal"
      and
      "No court may entertain proceedings for questioning"
      676
      a host of things that higher courts exist to question and to impeach if necessary. A court is specifically prevented by the Bill
      "from entertaining proceedings to determine whether a purported determination, decision or action of the Tribunal was a nullity by reason of—

      (i)lack of jurisdiction,

      (ii)irregularity,

      (iii)error of law,

      (iv)breach of natural justice, or

      (v)any other matter"

      This is a Bill that was drafted by the close advisers of some African despot, not by a British Government interested in the rule of law. It is an absurd, disproportionate and wrong piece of legislation, yet we have to debate these clauses because the Government think it right and proper to do such things. The Government are like a group of small boys ripping up a beautiful butterfly—our constitution—pulling off its wings to see how long it takes before the beast is dead. As a Member of Parliament, I am appalled to find that I must even consider legislation containing clause 11.
      David Winnick: There is merit in what the hon. and learned Gentleman says and I do not disagree with many of his arguments, but as a Conservative Member, does he not accept responsibility for the fact that asylum seekers have been demonised, not least by his party at constituency level and sometimes in the House of Commons? If the Government are acting in a way about which I have many reservations—I shall have to decide how to vote, or whether to vote at all, on this group of amendments—it is because they are responding to the manner in which asylum seekers are demonised by the media and the Conservative party, and to the constant pressure on them as a result.
      Mr. Garnier: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's point was helpful to him or his Government, but others will be able to consider it as and when they wish to.
      I shall explain briefly why I think that clause 11 is so strange and so absurd. Having learned that no court may look at matters that affect jurisdiction, or at matters that were decided irregularly, or were in breach of the law, or in breach of natural justice or any other matter—whatever that may be—we are told that the court may consider
      "whether a member of the Tribunal has acted in bad faith,"
      in reliance on an earlier subsection, but
      "only if satisfied that significant evidence has been adduced of

      (a)dishonesty,

      (b)corruption, or

      (c)bias."

      It is all right if the tribunal was slightly dishonest or slightly corrupt or slightly biased, or perhaps not at all dishonest but completely corrupt, and just a teensyweensy bit biased.
      If that is the position, the tribunal can, if it thinks fit, look at itself again. I wonder whether the Government will find a judge who will think it proper to allow himself to be appointed president of the tribunal.
      We have seen the remarks of Messrs. Justices Collins and Ouseley, the two most recent presidents of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. In their judicial

      677
      pronouncements, they have underscored the value of the appellate system that they have headed up. They are not making political points, but simply giving judgment on cases that have come before them from the lower tiers. Such people will not be available to sit on the tribunal, because most judges, I suspect, will find it a thoroughly objectionable and unprincipled tribunal to be in charge of.
      The Government have told us that they have to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor because it is offensive to the doctrine of the separation of powers. We are also told in the Bill that abolishes that office that the way in which judges will be appointed in future will underscore the separation of the Executive and the judiciary, whom it will free from the influence of political appointment. Nobody, of course, has ever suggested that our judges are appointed on anything other than merit, but none the less the Government think that that is appropriate. However, under this Bill, we will have a system under which the appointment of judges and members of the tribunal is subject to the influence of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, and citizens of our country can deal with asylum seekers in such a way that their human rights are expressly denied.
      I shall conclude with an illustrative example, as I appreciate that many other hon. Members wish to speak. The Government want to do away with the appeal process in the immigration and asylum system on the ground that it is offensive to the Treasury and some sub-editors and editors of some of our national newspapers. They also want to attract votes away from the British National party. However, not once but twice and now a third time they have required an asylum-seeking constituent of mine, Captain Rogelio Viteri, the former Ecuadorian naval attachè who, along with his wife, has been threatened with death, to attend a hearing. Both of them have been subjected to terrible personal anguish, both in this country and in Quito, where he was imprisoned without trial or access to due process. He was eventually told that he could stay in his home country and die or go away and live. I am happy to say that he chose to live in this country, and to apply for asylum here. He was granted it at the first tier. The Home Office, not content with that decision, appealed. At the appeal hearing, the Home Office did not submit evidence nor did it cross-examine my constituent's witnesses. It sat on its hands and lost the appeal, only to appeal that result. The next hearing is on 18 March. The Government are cynically removing the appeal rights of asylums seekers in the Bill, but they are prepared to exploit the appeals system at vast public expense and without any idea of what justice is or means, let alone what the cost is to the Exchequer.
      Annabelle Ewing: I seem to recall that the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to his constituents' sorry tale in Committee. Is it not the case that Ecuador is whitelisted?
      Mr. Garnier: Ecuador is an interesting place, but I shall not go into the evidence that was adduced in the two previous hearings and will no doubt be adduced again.
      678
      In short, the Government have double standards. They claim to be the patron of human rights, yet are prepared to abuse future asylum seekers' human rights under clause 11. They have demonstrated their lack of good faith, I submit, in their handling of the Viteri asylum application. I have said enough to make the points that I wish to make, and have burdened the House with my remarks for too long. I trust that hon. Members who have listened to others apart from me realise that the Government have some good intentions, but in relation to clause 11 they have completely and utterly lost all connection with humanity and justice.
      Ms Abbott: I am glad to be able to speak in support of proper appeal rights for asylum seekers and of the amendment to delete clause 11.
      Two important parliamentary Committees examined the proposals on the appeal system and reached conclusions that are not favourable to the Government. Opposition to clause 11 rests on issues of principle and of practice. In the first instance, there is a clear objection in principle to any tribunal exercising a supervisory jurisdiction over itself, yet that is the set-up for which the Government are asking us to vote tonight. As colleagues have said, the Government can get away with that only because asylum seekers are involved. If clause 11 is passed unchallenged tonight, we will set a precedent that, for administrative convenience, could be applied to various Executive and administrative tribunals seeking to do away with a proper system of appeal.
      Underlying clause 11 is the Government's concern about delay in dealing with asylum seekers and a range of immigration cases. I have great sympathy with their impatience. I have been a Member of Parliament for 17 years in a corner of north-east London that is home to asylum seekers and economic migrants from all parts of the globe and have dealt with thousands of cases. Some things change—every time there is a war or disturbance in a far corner of the globe there is a change in the pattern of asylum seekers and economic migrants who present themselves in Hackney. Ten years ago, we saw people displaced from the former Yugoslavia, but since then we have seen Kurds and people from the horn of Africa.
      Demographic trends change, but other things remain the same. During my time as a Member of Parliament the administration system has been consistently poor, and delays have continued. The Government are right to focus on delay, but they are wrong to identify appeal rights as the most important cause of delay. If the Government introduced a programme of legal and administrative change to deal with delay at all levels, I would be the first to support them. Week after week in my advice sessions, I try to advise and help people who have waited years for a response from the Home Office. People who have had hearings in their favour are still waiting months to get the paperwork that will allow them to work and get on with their lives. Nobody feels more strongly about delays in dealing with asylum and immigration cases than the MPs who have to deal with those cases day in, day out.
      If the Government are concerned about delay, before they tamper with appeal rights they should look at the causes of delay, the solution to which rests in their own hands.

      679
      7.30 pm
      I commend to the Government a recent report by Amnesty International on decision making in asylum cases that asked why some of the initial decisions were so poor. Amnesty considered 170 cases and came up with three main reasons, the first of which is the lack of accurate information on the human rights situations in some countries. I have often seen Foreign Office human rights assessments that bear no relation to what I or anyone who knows the country concerned knows about what is going on there—or perhaps the Government hear only what they want to hear. Secondly, there is a lack of objective consideration of the credibility of applicants. Finally, there is not enough proper consideration of torture and medical evidence.
      Before the Government tamper with appeal rights, why will they not look at the quality of the initial decision making, because that in itself would speed up the system? It is no good saying that there are bound to be a few mistakes. We are not talking about a few mistakes. Any of my colleagues who deal with immigration and asylum day in, day out will say that the proportion of poor initial decisions is far too high.
      Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend has sat through many debates on immigration Bills with me over the past 17 years, but does she not find it astonishing that the Government have proposed no package of measures to improve the operation of the Home Office? I am not saying that the proposals to remove the second tier of appeal would be acceptable if such measures had been introduced, but the Government have not even thought of a way of improving that first process before removing the right of appeal.
      Ms Abbott: Of course my hon. Friend is right. If the Government had proposed a package of measures—legal measures or merely changes in process—to improve the initial decisions, the House would look more favourably upon their suggestions on the appeals process.
      The Constitutional Affairs Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a member, said:
      "The new proposals do too little to address the failings at the initial decision-making level and the low level Home Office representation at initial appeals."
      Apparently, there is no Home Office attendance at up to 40 per cent. of cases. How can Ministers ask the House to set what might be a very damaging precedent in doing away with tribunal appeal rights, when they are not prepared to take the administrative steps to ensure that the Home Office is represented at all initial appeals?
      The Home Affairs Committee said:
      "The real flaw in the system appears to be at the stage of initial decision making, not that of appeal."
      Of course layers of appeal are needed because of the poor overall standard of decision making at the very first tier, which is the only check and quality control. Worse, where people know that the quality of initial decision making is so poor, it is an incentive, but not the only one, for asylum seekers to play for time. We could with more confidence defend a speeded-up system if we had more confidence in the initial decisions that it takes.
      680
      The Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is not packed with dangerous radicals or even extremist Tories, said:
      "We recommend that the removal of a formal tier of appeal should not be undertaken until it can be shown that there has been a significant improvement in initial decision making and the rise in the number of successful first tier appeals has been substantially reversed."
      In other words, get the system right first. The Government should get the system working efficiently and fairly before tampering with fundamental rights of appeal.
      I note with some sadness that no Labour Member has so far spoken to support clause 11. I do not believe that a single Labour Member will rise to support clause 11, and I hope that those in the other place will read the report of the debate in Hansard and realise that the proposal to do away with a tier of appeal rights has no support among Government Members. I hope that that will strengthen the Lords in doing what it has to do in relation to clause 11.
      There is no doubt that the Government have made much important headway in trying to reorganise, streamline and make our asylum system more efficient. No one who has dealt with the system could fail to appreciate that the Government had a Herculean task; but, as has been said earlier this evening, in doing away with a whole tier of appeal rights, the Government are going a step too far. They need to knock out clause 11, and return to the House with a package of proposals to improve the appeals process altogether. It is with some regret that other hon. Members and I tell the Government that we cannot support clause 11. We will support the amendment to remove it, and we look to others in another House to reinforce our view.
      Mr. Bacon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in the debate. She referred to the fact that not a single Labour Member of Parliament had spoken in support of clause 11. I think that I am right in saying that not a single Member of Parliament has spoken in support of the clause. The Minister may find himself in the curious position of being the only Member of Parliament to speak in favour of clause 11 on Report, which speaks eloquently of its worth.
      The reason hon. Members do not support clause 11 is very simple: it is a bedrock of our system that we do not have unreviewable, uncheckable powers. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) put that exceptionally succinctly and clearly in his speech. The lack of such power is the basis on which the Anglo-Saxon legal and political tradition is built, and the Government need to understand that.
      I should like to raise a couple of issues with the Minister, the first of which relates to the Human Rights Act 1998, which has been alluded to. I should like him to make it very clear in replying to the debate whether the Government assert that the Bill is now compatible with that Act. My original copy of the Bill clearly stated that the Home Secretary
      "has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
      In my view the provisions of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights."

      681
      If we pick a clean copy of the Bill off the Table now, it says no such thing; mysteriously, that certificate is no longer there. The Minister could do the House a service if he clarified that point. Following the Bill's consideration in Committee, do the Government say that the Human Rights Act no longer applies? If they think that it applies, why is it not stated on the face of the Bill? If they think that it does not apply, will they please say so and attempt to justify that?
      The second point that I want to make relates to the interesting, not to say amazing, letter that we received from the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration. In relation to clause 11, it says that section 108A is intended
      "to prevent a person using judicial review to re-open an appeal by challenging removal or deportation following an unsuccessful appeal. However—
      unfortunately—
      as drafted paragraph…could be interpreted as affecting an individual's right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention and the right to compensation following their unlawful detention as a result of action by IND or the Tribunal. This would place the UK in breach of…article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights…The Government's position has always been that the measures being introduced by section 108A will not exclude judicial review"
      Hence the new Government amendment. It continues by saying that the amendments
      "will ensure that the restriction on access to the higher courts cannot be interpreted as extending to challenges to actions of IND, or actions of the Tribunal in breach of article 5"—
      which will therefore—
      "place beyond doubt that the provisions contained in section 108A do not prevent a person from challenging an executive decision in the higher courts."
      If all that is clear, one wonders what all the fuss was about. But unfortunately, when one reads the Bill and examines the powers of the president, all remains unclear. Subsection (4) of proposed new section 108B states:
      "The President may refer a point of law only if the proceedings in the course of which the point arises…have not been determined by the Tribunal"
      Of course, it is entirely possible for someone who is affected by a decision to say during a tribunal hearing that the case before the tribunal was affected by a lack of jurisdiction or an irregularity, or by an error of law or a breach of natural justice. According to clause 11 as drafted, however, if the president of the tribunal says, "Well, actually, the case is not affected by lack of jurisdiction, irregularity, error of law or a breach of natural justice", he is then barred from referring the case to a higher court, unless—apropos the provision referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough(Mr. Garnier)—the tribunal decides that it will review the decision on appeal, which it can do if it is satisfied that the decision would have been different but for a clear error of law. The president could be confronted with the possibility that there was a clear error of law and say,"No, there wasn't" But the Bill states elsewhere that he is barred from making a referral, so the two different parts of the Bill are contradictory.
      The third issue that I want to raise has already been referred to, so I shall not dwell on it. Fundamentally, the problem is not a legal one but an administrative one,
      682
      which is why I support amendment No. 93 and new clause 8, the purposes of which are to speed up administration of the appeals system. The answer to the problem is not to drive a coach and horses through the whole legal apparatus, or to undermine the bedrock on which our liberties have stood—which is that we do not have unreviewable or uncheckable power—but to speed up the administrative processes.
      As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) said—he is no longer in his place—the House of Lords will not look kindly on the Bill; and, as the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, the fact that not a single Member has so far spoken in favour of clause 11 will give the Lords courage in resisting it and seeking to amend it. Although the hon. Member for Cannock Chase was right to say that the other place will not look kindly on clause 11 and probably seek heavily to review it, the judges themselves will not look kindly on it either. The history of the Executive's attempts to impose ouster clauses in this way suggests that if the judges see that an injustice will be done in a particular case unless they intervene, they will find a way to do so.
      Ultimately, the Government will succeed simply in undermining the rationality and logic of the rule of law, because they will force the judiciary to become ever more creative and imaginative in finding a way round it. That cannot be in anybody's interests. In fact, the Law Commission has an obligation to simplify and clarify the law, which is what we should all seek to do, so that everyone can understand it. The solution to this problem is an administrative one. The Government should not seek to solve it by declaring war on the judiciary.
      David Winnick:: I am very unhappy with the Government's proposals. If we were in opposition I can imagine what we would be saying, and it is quite likely that those Conservative Members who now oppose the proposals would be arguing in favour of them. However, that is the nature of politics.
      Mr. Grieve: I do not think that we would, because the proposals are so fundamentally objectionable in terms of the idea of the state in which I want to live. However tempted one might be by the Government's proposals—I can understand that some people might be tempted by them—I could not go along with them under any circumstances.
      7.45 pm
      David Winnick: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but whether a Conservative Government would take that line is a completely different matter.
      As I said in an intervention, this debate is being held against the background of the demonisation of a group of people—asylum seekers—over the past few years, and the Conservative party must accept some responsibility for that. I have seen leaflets distributed in constituencies that caused me to wonder whether the British National party produced them, and some of my hon. Friends can doubtless say the same. [Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary shakes his head, but that is the unfortunate fact. Of course, the media have also

      683
      played a part in demonising asylum seekers at every opportunity. Although I am unhappy with the Government's proposals and I do not intend to vote for them tonight, I can understand why they are responding—wrongly, in my view—to that situation, and to a climate of opinion that demonises the people to whom I have referred.
      I am perhaps the only person in the Chamber who was here in the late 1960s, when another group of people were being demonised who were not in the United Kingdom: east African Asians. Because of the clamour—involving Enoch Powell and the rest of it—it was decided that they should not be allowed to come to the United Kingdom, despite the promises that were made. I was one of the 50-odd Members of Parliament—mainly Labour MPs, but not exclusively
      So—who voted against that proposal.
      Of course, there is no automatic right in terms of moving from the adjudicator to the tribunal—or at least, that was the case when I was involved in the appeals system. One had to rely on points of law, and when a client had lost a case and wanted to go to the tribunal, one would often have to explain the facts of life to them. Unless such points of law existed, the case could not be made for reviewing, and possibly reversing, the adjudicator's decision. But what worries me—
      Jeremy Corbyn: In the light of my hon. Friend's experience of the appeals system, is he not concerned that the quality of representation of many applicants for asylum is very poor? They often lose their case at the first hurdle because of poor quality or non-existent representation, and at a later stage it is almost impossible to retrieve the situation. Taking away any kind of appeal actually makes matters worse.
      David Winnick: My experience dates back over many years—I have represented my current constituency for 25 years-and I can only hope that that was not the situation when I was involved in the appeals system. I hope that representation is good, and I am sure that solicitors and the Immigration Advisory Service, which I used to be involved with, do as fine a job as possible. However, I accept entirely that, in many cases, that is not so.
      I cannot disagree with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). It is unfortunate and unacceptable that the new tribunal will be able to make decisions that cannot be reviewed. I do not necessarily go along with the argument that today it is the asylum seekers and tomorrow it will be another group of people. Nor do I agree with the view that the Government do not want judges to be independent, and that they want them to be their virtual puppets. To the extent that that view is being advanced, it is an exaggeration and a false description of the Government's position.
      Having said all that, I believe that the Government have gone too far. It is clear that the proposals will be accepted, and I do not challenge for one moment the view that they will enjoy a good majority, but I do agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) that the likelihood of the Lords approving the proposals is very remote indeed. The Government will have to be less dogmatic, and it would be far better if they listened closely—if not to the Opposition then to their own Members.
      684
      It speaks volumes that no Labour Back Bencher has decided to come forward to defend and to justify what is being done. I therefore hope that even at this late stage, it would be possible for the Government very seriously to reflect on our concerns and reservations.
      Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) contrasted what he thinks might happen if there were a Conservative Government with what is happening while there is a Labour Government. I think that he is wrong about that, and that no Conservative Member would have presented such a proposal to the House. Indeed, I find it a huge surprise that any Member would do so, but as it has happened we have to fight it very hard. The Minister should note the fact that no Member of any description has supported it or thinks it tolerable. The reason for that is rather serious: it is that none can believe that a Government would present such a proposal. I remember when we debated the inclusion of the European convention on human rights in British law. I was doubtful about the value of doing so, because I felt that the convention defends people against things that would not be done in Britain in any case. Now, the Government are proving that we need it.
      Several aspects of the proposal are seriously and fundamentally wrong. First, it treats people who happen to be foreign differently from those who happen not to be foreign. That goes against the first principle of English law; and it goes back, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, not to some enlightened judge of the 20th century, or even an enlightened judge of the 19th century, but to some pretty unenlightened judges of the 18th century, who made it clear that it was in the nature of British law not to treat people under its jurisdiction differently because they happened not to have been born here or not to have British citizenship. This measure represents a serious departure from what has been a very important example to other people.
      Secondly, it sets up a system in which, to all intents and purposes, there is no proper appeal to a court. I accept the points that have been made about speed and support the amendments tabled by Conservative Members, but remind the Minister that there is a great deal of difference between speed and making bad law. In doing something more quickly, one must not deny people their fundamental rights.
      Thirdly, it sets a bad example. The hon. Member for Walsall, North suggested that if the Conservatives were presenting this case and the Government were in opposition, they would be fighting it tooth and nail. I just wonder what we would think if one of the friendly nations across the channel introduced this change in the law. We would say, "Gosh, that just shows how good British law is: we would never do something like that." If it took place in some African state, we would say, in rather superior mode, "I wish they'd follow the British system." We would be unable to justify it happening anywhere else, yet in a few moments the Minister will get up to justify it here in Britain—the nation that has always stood for fair do's for people even when it is inconvenient.
      I am worried that the Minister has, yet again, made me vote on the left on a legal matter. That embarrasses not only me, but my constituents, who cannot

      685
      understand why every time there is a change to the legal system—whether it is the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—they find their Conservative Member of Parliament having to vote on the left of the Government.
      Mr. Grieve: My right hon. Friend should not be worried: he is not voting on the left. The point has been well made that many Members on both sides of the House can unite around this issue and express their anxiety. I suggest that the anxiety felt by my right hon. Friend, which he shares with me, fits fundamentally with Conservative ethics—it is a concern about the rule of law. That is a very traditional approach. He should reassure his constituents that he wants to stand up for the rule of law, as a good Conservative should.
      Mr. Gummer: I am perfectly prepared to say that—indeed, I have been doing so—but it does not get around my problem. The only people who would stand up in this House to support the Minister are those on the far right, none of whom should be elected to it. They are people like the man who, only a short time ago, stood as the British National party candidate in my constituency, so disgracing the electorate. I feel very strongly about this because I dislike and despise that party's policies, some of which are based on the idea that foreign people do not have the same rights as our own citizens and that a distinction should be drawn between our citizens and other people because they do not count as much. The Minister will have to do a lot of talking to prove to this House that his proposal does not mean that, although I believe that to be beyond even his style of oratory.
      Fourthly, I am a believer in infallibility, but only that of the Pope: I do not believe in the infallibility of tribunals, bureaucrats or much of the asylum and immigration service. It is manifestly unacceptable to install in our law a system that depends for its acceptability on the infallibility of people who have shown themselves to be utterly fallible throughout last year, the year before and every year that I can remember.
      Fifthly, there is the issue of delays, which has been discussed by several of my hon. Friends and other Members. The constituency of Suffolk, Coastal is not subject to the degree of pressure from asylum seekers that is experienced in the constituencies of many Members who have spoken. However, I have been involved in quite a few cases in my surgery, and in not a single one could I suggest that the Home Office has acted with dispatch. In all my many years as a Member of Parliament, I cannot remember the Home Office, under any Government, being described as speedy. Spot the deliberate mistake: "I am so pleased", says a constituent, "to have had a rapid answer from the Home Office." Who has ever heard anyone say that? How many Members of Parliament could say that they have never been involved in cases where the speed has been so lacking that the constituent's documents have been lost? How many could say that they have not had a case where the constituent's documents have been lost twice? I was involved in one where the documents were lost three times—no more than that, as yet, but perhaps if I stay in this House for another 20 years it will happen.
      686
      The truth of the matter is that the Home Office has an appalling reputation in terms of the speed with which it deals with cases and its ability to lose the relevant documents.
      I therefore agree, unusually, with a Labour Member who said that it would have been sensible for the Government to present a package of measures to show that they would tidy matters up, put their house in order and make the Home Office so fast in its dealings that it would be reasonable for it to request rapidity from others.
      8 pm
      My last point is perhaps the most important. People who are in a privileged position should be especially careful about those who are not. Every hon. Member is in a privileged position because we know that the law will treat us fairly. Everybody who is born British should remember that it remains a considerable privilege because we live in a nation where we do not go about in fear, and when something goes wrong, we have a right and an opportunity to rectify matters. In that, we are not in the majority in the world. People like us, with privileges, should be especially careful about taking away those of the unprivileged.
      At the beginning of fair trade fortnight, many of us are concerned that rich countries take from, rather than give to, the poor. Many of us believe that huge changes should be made to the way in which the world works. We are especially worried that the poorest countries are providing capital to the rich rather than the other way around. We may take time to do something about that, but to take today the step of removing from people the few rights that they have and the small access to freedom that we give them is deeply offensive.
      I hope that all hon. Members who are in this country because, in the recent past, this country welcomed them or their ancestors, will think carefully before they vote for such a fundamental change. The privileged should certainly remember their position; those whose privilege depends on some past generous decision should be even more worried about the measure.
      It is unacceptable that the House of Commons should rely on the House of Lords to put right something that should never have been introduced. We are the elected House; we should stand up for the freedom of individuals. We should be ashamed that such a provision was brought before us and ensure that it is thrown out.
      The Under-Secretary should ask himself how he can come to the House to defend such a measure. Why is it him? Where is the Home Secretary when we are making a fundamental change to the law as it has existed in England for hundreds of years? He leaves a poor junior Minister to defend an impossible case, which would not have been presented were not the Home Secretary the man he is. Such a provision would not have been introduced without his personal decision. Yet whom does he leave here? A Parliamentary Under-Secretary. He is not willing to come to the House to explain why 300 years of law should be overturned. It is a disgrace and I hope that the House of Commons throws out what should never have been presented to it.
      Jeremy Corbyn: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)

      687
      because he is correct that we are privileged and enjoy rights, and that that does not give us the right to take them away from anybody else. If we pass clause 11, we will remove the right of appeal from some of the most vulnerable people in the world. Some of them have arrived in this country believing that they were coming to a place of safety. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said earlier, if we remove those rights from non-British nationals because that is easy, it is not difficult to extend the principle.
      Last week, we passed the anti-terrorist measure that allows the Home Secretary to detain foreign nationals indefinitely because they are foreign nationals and he believes them to have some terrorist connection. I believe that everyone, irrespective of nationality, has exactly the same right to access to justice. We should stand up for that important principle. If we vote for clause 11 tonight, we shall allow a parallel system of justice to be established and remove a right of appeal, and it will be a very bad day. I hope that the House of Lords will reverse such a decision, but it is sad that we have to rely on an unelected Chamber to overturn a decision that we should not accept.
      David Winnick: My hon. Friend knows that I largely agree with him but I want to put the matter in perspective and I do not apologise for speaking about the Conservative party's position. Is it not a fact that the Conservative scheme would not allow asylum seekers into the country, but put them on an island, from where they would have no right of appeal?
      Jeremy Corbyn: I support people's rights to seek asylum according to the terms of the 1951 Geneva convention. The basic right that it sets out for people to seek asylum because they are in fear of persecution for religious, social or political reasons should not be tampered with. It is important to stick exactly to that principle.
      Mr. Grieve: Whatever the merits or demerits of the proposal to process asylum seekers offshore, I simply point out that, in such processing, all the protections of the law, including existing powers of appeal, would be there for those seeking asylum.
      Jeremy Corbyn: If I may, I should like to revert to clause 11, which we are debating.
      All those who seek asylum have a right to have their case properly considered and tackled, and a right of appeal against any decision. Those rights include that to proper representation, and that is why I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick). As a Member of Parliament who represents an inner-urban constituency, where many people seek asylum, have sought it and will doubtless seek it in future, from all sorts of tyrannical regimes all around the world, I find it desperately sad that they are so badly advised and represented at the beginning of the process that the case is almost lost before it has begun. It is the Home Office's responsibility to ensure the availability of adequate legal advice and good quality representation. However, legal aid companies that have done good work on representation are closing by the day; good
      688
      quality lawyers are giving up on asylum work because they can no longer afford to do it, and some of the most desperate and vulnerable people are left unrepresented.
      Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend referred to our unfortunate reliance on the House of Lords to throw out the clause. Is not one of the most unfortunate aspects that, if the House of Lords were reformed so that it was wholly appointed, it would be even less likely that the second Chamber would make good such provisions?
      Jeremy Corbyn: As a democrat, 1 favour neither a hereditary nor an appointed but an elected Chamber. All Chambers should be elected and thus mandated. However, unfortunately, I shall not make the final decision.
      Let us revert to clause 11. In a couple of weeks, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights will start its annual session, which will run for four or five weeks, in Geneva. Doubtless, it will rightly pass many condemnatory motions about human rights abuses throughout the world. How embarrassing it would be if the commission passed a motion that condemned Britain for its failure to provide a proper appeals system for asylum seekers and for its deporting them to places of danger. We should consider that.
      Many hon. Members will have received an excellent document from Amnesty International that outlines the way in which Home Office decision making fails refugees. It tackles the concept of safe countries and the strange advice on which the Home Office appears to rely when deciding what is safe and what is not.
      Three weeks ago, I was invited to chair a meeting in the House of Commons of the Congolese community in this country to discuss the situation facing their country, their safety and their concerns. Some 3 million people have died in the current war in that country—a death rate of first world war standards recorded in the 21st century. Fundamentally, it is a war about resources, with lots and lots of complications around it. I asked those at that meeting, which was sober and well informed—some of the people who attended had lived in this country for a long time and had sought asylum 20 or 30 years ago, and some were more recent arrivals—what message they would like me to convey to the Government. Their message was that they wanted peace in their country, and a Government in their country who were representative, accountable and democratic, but above all, they did not want any of their compatriots who had sought asylum in this country to be deported back to the Congo, to a place of a danger.
      The Home Office decides the suitability or otherwise of various countries to receive failed asylum applicants on the basis of a sort of tick box process, saying, "Does it have an independent Government? Does it have an independent judiciary?" In many cases, the answer is yes, yes, yes, so it is safe to deport people. Every Member of the House who has dealt with deported asylum seekers who have been returned to various countries in west Africa and other places will know perfectly well that they are not safe when they return—that they can be pursued, arrested, tortured and beaten, and they can disappear. We have deported asylum seekers to those places of danger, and I have had a considerable number of such cases.

      689
      As for some of the letters sent out by the Home Office, or the statements made to appeal committees against an asylum refusal in this country, I will quote one that was reported in the Amnesty International document concerning Colombia. It states:
      "The Secretary of State considers that the authorities of Colombia are capable of offering you effective protection. With regard to the offences committed against you, and the failure of the police to capture the perpetrators, the Secretary of State does not consider that the inability of the police to identify and apprehend such people can be construed as complicity in, or support for, such behaviour."
      I was in Colombia two weeks ago, and I met trade unionists who had seen fellow trade unionists murdered—the largest number in any country in the world in the past year—lawlessness and the ineffectiveness of the civil authorities when dealing with those cases. We have to be serious about this matter. In denying people the right to appeal, we are ipso facto sending those people back to grave danger and in some cases possible death.
      Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is my hon. Friend concerned that the issue that we are now debating is fuelled by a hardening of public attitudes towards people whom they see as strangers? Is he concerned that in pursuing that course the interests of justice might well be lost?
      Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It seems to me that much of the policy surrounding asylum seekers is fuelled by the headlines in the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, and the comments of some Members of the House at various times. It is the duty of Members of Parliament to stand up for rights, justice and vulnerable minorities. If we must pay a political price for it, so be it, but we must stand up to maintain those principles and that strength.
      In conclusion, the appeals system, far from being abused, is difficult to activate at present. One must get leave to appeal. According to the Home Office figures for last year, 4 per cent. of such appeals were successful. If this measure is passed, those appeals would be denied, which means that 2,900 people would be deported from this country who might have won an appeal. In the previous year, a much larger number won those appeals. It is up to the Government to explain exactly what they mean by this measure.
      We passed the Human Rights Act 1998. We have signed up to all the UN conventions, and we signed up to the 1951 convention. We pride ourselves on being a place of safety and liberty, and yet we deny it to people. Daily, I meet asylum seekers living on nothing, scrounging to try to survive in our society, wanting to work, wanting to contribute, but who are in danger of being deported back to the horror from which they thought that they had escaped by coming to this country as a place of safety. They are an easy target for the racists, the British National party and the tabloid press. We should be able to do and say something better in the House to protect that right of appeal and that fundamental right of asylum. Surely, as elected representatives, we should carry out that duty tonight.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Beith: The amendments under discussion bear on issues that were raised by the Constitutional Affairs Committee in our report published last week. We began studying the immigration and asylum appeals process last year—proposals that had not yet come into effect from the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. We rushed to produce further reports on the Government's restrictions on legal aid in asylum and immigration matters, and we rushed the report out to make sure that the House had the opportunity of seeing our recommendations on this Bill, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. That Act, which was the Government's declared means of speeding up the process of appeals, has had no time to be assessed. If a process is introduced with that as the avowed purpose, at least we should allow more than a few months to establish whether it achieves that purpose. It is impossible to assess within a few months whether it has done so. The Government have simply not taken the opportunity to evaluate their chosen method of speeding up the process.
      In the course of that, we discovered that the initial decision-making process is so often faulty that to remove part of the appeals process, and certainly to remove the jurisdiction of higher courts, will be doubly dangerous, because there are obviously so many failings in the initial decision-making process. We went to India and Istanbul to look at the problems confronted there, we looked at many aspects in this country, and we received a wide range of evidence from both sides of the table—from Government, applicants and those who represent them, and from the judiciary, which was a source of real concern. One of the points that the Committee would want me to emphasise is that the measures under discussion tonight are not just about asylum but about immigration applicants of all kinds, including people seeking family reunions and people seeking family visits for weddings and funerals. Members will know of the extent to which they have had to become involved in trying to get people's cases dealt with in time for them to attend a funeral or wedding.
      Mr. Bacon: The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not just about asylum but about visits and so on. Does he agree that it is not just about asylum, immigration or visits, but to quote the Matrix chambers brief, about whether there should be
      "a precedent for exempting the executive and administrative tribunals from seeking to understand, apply or be governed by the law"?
      That could apply to any tribunal.
      Mr. Beith: That is true, and it is a point that has been well made in all parts of the House. I must emphasise, however, the range of categories of people who are outside this country but who are subject to the same process because they are seeking admission to this country to visit members of their family, or to join members of their family, in a process of inward immigration, which must be regulated but in which they are entitled to a fair hearing and a proper appeal system.
      Then we encountered the wide range of Home Office delays in processing appeals. It struck us that it should not be the Home Office that processes the appeal. It should not be the Home Office that receives the appeal and effectively decides when the tribunal can deal with it

      691
      by sitting on those papers for quite some time. In any other judicial process, it is surely not one of the parties to the argument that effectively makes the decision about when the tribunal can begin to consider the hearing of the matter. Appeals should go to the immigration appeal authority in the first instance and not to the Home Office.
      Then we were concerned about the non-appearance of presenting officers. It seemed to us extraordinary that in so many cases—30 or 40 per cent.—the Home Office should not be there to present the reasons why it objects to the appeal being granted. That places an unreasonable burden on the adjudicating body and underlines again the need to be able to refer the matter to a higher level, if that has happened. Indeed, it led us to ask the Government to consider whether the judicial person in that situation should do something that was not normal in English law—to adopt a more inquisitorial approach simply to ensure that all the facts are brought out, which cannot be the case when the adversarial system is not operating because one side is not present.
      Then we had doubts and anxieties about the fairness of out-of-country appeals—non-suspensive appeals—and about the disparity between the success rate in paper appeals and in appeals taken orally, in which either the applicant or the family of the applicant were represented.
      There is a clear disparity. It suggests that if people do not know that it is possible to undertake an oral appeal, or if there is no one who can attend an appeal on their behalf, they will benefit from a less good decision. That is another reason to allow the matter to go further.
      When we asked the Minister in the Constitutional Affairs Committee about the ousting of the jurisdiction of the House of Lords, even in cases in which the tribunal president might want the Lords to consider a wider legal matter, he said that the Government were minded to allow the Lords at least a limited ability to define matters of law in an area in which their role had been so important in the past. So far, however, no amendment has been tabled to allow that.
      Let me select the two general conclusions made in the Committee which I consider most relevant to our discussion. In paragraph 70, we say:
      "An ouster clause as extensive as the one suggested in the Bill is without precedent. As a matter of constitutional principle some form of higher judicial oversight of lower Tribunals and executive decisions should be retained. This is particularly true when life and liberty may be at stake."
      In paragraph 71, we say that the system of statutory review established by the 2002 Act, which was invented to shorten the previous system of review, had not had long enough in which to operate, and that no change should be made
      "until there has been more experience of its impact."
      Yet here we are, in the closing stages of consideration of the Bill, seeing the jurisdiction of the superior court ousted without any of the points I have mentioned being satisfactorily addressed. That certainly convinces me that I should vote for amendments that either remove clause 11 or substantially alter its impact.
      Vera Baird: The House is full of grandiloquence tonight, but I have only five minutes; and although the
      692
      issues are large, it seems to be that the changes required are relatively small. What is required is an independent appeals system. That would restore the constitutional propriety; it would restore the rule of law; it would give coherence to the proposal, and make it compatible with the convention. At present there is no independent appeals process, and that is the trouble.
      There is nothing magical about judicial review. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) spoke of 260 decisions that had been judicially reviewed as if they had been successful appeals. What happens is that a decision is examined, and found to have been made in a reasonable or unlawful way. The case is then sent back to the adjudicator, who may make the same decision or may make a different one; but he will have to do it correctly the second time. I make no comment on how many of the 260 were true appeals and how many were not, and I entirely agree that one person wrongly sent back to torture because of the lack of a proper appeal is too many; but I think that that makes the clear point that judicial review is not necessarily the appeal process of choice for decisions that need to be not only right and accurate, but speedy.
      Judicial review is not such a marvel. It was ousted by an Act of Parliament very recently, and replaced by a statutory review, or independent appeals system—perfectly unexceptionably, it seems. Moreover, although many speakers have decried the ousting of judicial review in criminal cases, there has been no entitlement to it—except in relation to very peripheral matters—since the century before last. It is not a key part of our constitution.
      It is imperative, however, that the clause refer to an independent appellate process. I said the same on Second Reading, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said that the Government felt that the clause did refer to such a process. That is a review, on paper, by a colleague of the adjudicator, of the same seniority, who has been to the same classes and read the same books, and been taught by the same lecturers. The appeal principle is that there should be a proper review by a senior judge, better qualified and more experienced, who can truly review.
      As the clause stands, we are talking about passing the appeal to the chap on the next desk—a member of the same team. That is a curious notion of independence. What is required is the input of some senior judges. My suggestion is a small one: scrap peer review as a means of appeal, and bring into the single-tier new court a separate level of appellate judges, not at adjudicator level—which is district judge level, and quite low—but at the very least from the circuit bench, and probably from the High Court. They will be separately appointed, and they will not overlap. That is completely consistent with the usual manner of appeal in most courts in the land. In the unified criminal court that has just come into play, appeal is made from the magistrates court to the Crown court. They are quite separate, and the second is more senior than the first. From the county courts appeal is made to the Court of Appeal, and the second is senior to and independent of the first.
      I thought that I heard the Minister talking on the radio this morning about the possibility of some such change. It is imperative, and it will be hugely difficult for me to support the clause if it is not made. The

      693
      Government are not just ousting judicial review; they are ousting all appeals and all application of the rule of law. I also think that that appeal level should be able to deal with oral hearings if it wishes. That too would be only a minor change, but it would mean no more delay in any applications; it would involve no more people—just different people. Indeed, it would involve no difficulty at all, yet it would rectify all that is currently wrong.
      I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). If these changes, or something like them, are to be introduced elsewhere, please let us not be driven through the Whips system to erode constitutional principles that we all hold dear when the Government intend to reverse them later.
      I want to add a footnote, but an important one. I feel that in the interests of consistency and the continuing development of this branch of the law, what is currently a right for the tribunal president to refer a case to the Court of Appeal ought to become a right of appeal as well. In Committee, the Minister said that the president would almost certainly regard himself as bound by what the Court of Appeal came back to say. There is nothing now to stop the parties from writing to him and asking him to refer it to the Court of Appeal. We are only a small step away from allowing the parties to make a application for leave to appeal, with the president as the filter. After that, preferably, there should be a back-up procedure, with the Court of Appeal being allowed to second-guess him on a reviewed application.
      As I said, there has been much grandiloquence. It suggests that the distance between clause 11 and the sound constitutional principles of which we are all fond is desert-wide and chasm-deep. In fact, only a short step is needed to upgrade the review judges to a better calibre, and to firm up into a proper structure the current ghost of an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
      Annabelle Ewing: I shall speak briefly, as I know that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) is anxious to speak, and he was an active member of the Standing Committee.
      I add my voice to the condemnation of clause 11 that we have heard from every speaker. I shall not go through all my reasons, but the key reason is of course the fact that the clause will oust the jurisdiction of the courts. It is not acceptable to remove a whole swathe of administrative decisions from legal scrutiny. That would confer virtual legal immunity on those charged with the operation of our asylum and immigration system.
      The proposal is therefore unconstitutional, sets a dangerous precedent and, as hon. Members have pointed out tonight, effectively creates a second-class citizen in the UK. That is wholly unacceptable and is not the tradition of legal principles in my country of Scotland. It was patently clear in Committee that the Government are adopting such a draconian position simply for administrative convenience. However, administrative convenience cannot cure the fundamental defects of the Government's approach.
      694
      8.30 pm
      The Under-Secretary has heard every speech tonight, and every speech has been critical. I hope that he has been listening; he has said nothing yet. I look forward to hearing what he has to say, but he must accept that when every hon. Member makes such negative comments in a debate about his clause, surely the Government must think again.
      Mr. Gerrard: I shall be brief, as we need to give the Under-Secretary time to reply. It has been mentioned several times already that no one has spoken in support of clause 11, so let me reassure the Under-Secretary from the outset that that is not going to change. I am sure that he would not have expected me to say anything different.
      This is the most serious issue in the Bill by far because this part of the Bill will have the greatest impact on the greatest number of people. It is unprecedented for judicial oversight to be removed completely from any tribunal. No other tribunal in the whole of our legal system is not subject to judicial oversight.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) mentioned earlier in a brief and powerful speech that we could expect this to happen only to people who were not British. In fact, it will happen to relatives of people who are British. As hon. Members have pointed out, the provisions will apply not just to asylum claims, but to immigration cases. Our constituents will tell us about their relatives, who will be affected by the clause.
      The Government's arguments have been twofold: delays and numbers. I have yet to hear on Second Reading, in Committee or now on Report any argument of principle from the Government. The delay argument does not stand up, as has been pointed out many times in this evening's debate; nor do the numbers. The Government have not really played a numbers game—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway was not quite right on that—as much as a percentage game. They have said that only 3, 4 or 5 per cent. of appeals end up being won at the end of the process. However, if that small percentage is turned into real numbers, it is clear that we are dealing with 2,000 to 2,500 people every year, and the decisions taken could well affect their very existence. I do not believe that we should be taking any chances whatever in respect of getting it right on that sort of issue. A clear issue of principle is at stake here—ensuring that justice is done and taking cognisance of the consequences of a wrong decision.
      Finally, I shall say a few words about Government amendments Nos. 79 and 80. In some cases, a right of appeal to a tribunal would not exist in any case. but the amendments will take away judicial oversight from people who might be removed from the country and unable to challenge the decision. There could be grounds for a challenge—that the wrong person is being removed, for example, or that someone is being removed to the wrong place. We all know of examples where that has happened.
      It is a thoroughly bad clause. I would have liked to press my amendment No. 32, but in the absence of that, I shall certainly vote in favour of amendment No. 30.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs(Mr. David Lammy): What the Government propose has to he fair, principled and effective. Those have to be the watchwords of the Government's reforms, and clause 11 is central to our objective of delivering a streamlined appeals system. Appellants can be sure of independent and high-quality decision making and the system will deliver justice—but also finality.
      We have heard the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House, which have been expressed on Second Reading, in Committee, in the Constitutional Affairs Committee and again on Report tonight. We have listened to them, and the Government amendments, to which I shall return in due course, are directly intended to deal with them.
      In responding to amendments Nos. 30 to 32, it is also appropriate to cover amendments Nos. 92 to 96. Those amendments would effectively prevent the introduction of the single appeal tier, so I am afraid that I cannot accept them. They would allow the continuation of a multiple-tier appeals system and would retain existing routes to the higher courts or would introduce variations of the new review and appeal arrangements. In a sense, that is exactly what we are trying to avoid. It is vital to have early finality.
      Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend said that he had listened to the objections to clause 11. In that case, he will know that one principled objection is to the removal of a whole tier of appeal rights. Apart from administrative convenience, does he have any other reason for removing that whole tier?
      Mr. Lammy: May I tell my hon. Friend—she is my hon. Friend—that I am coming to that? It is not about
      taking away an additional tier, because we want to be satisfied that there is quality in the single tier. In fact, we meet and go beyond our human rights obligations under article 13.
      As I was saying, it is vital to have early finality, which will benefit—this is an important point—the genuine applicant, who will receive a prompt decision on the application and will be able to start life in the UK. At the same time, it will also deter those applicants who hope to play the system to their advantage to frustrate removal. There must be a fair balance, and it is right to secure that for members of the public.
      Mr. Grieve: Does not the Minister agree that the tight wording of amendment No. 93 would, in fact, provide a streamlined system while still preserving independent judicial supervision of it? If the Minister goes down the road that he proposes, far from delivering finality, there will be endless arguments in the courts—the Minister's drafting will not be able to prevent it—in which one challenge after another will be mounted to the entire legislation. How will that help good government?
      Mr. Lammy: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong about that amendment. It would mean having multiple layers of appeal and remittals back down to the
      696
      single tier. That would bring about a long and protracted process, which is exactly what we are trying to reform.
      Mr. Malins: If the Minister is against having a long protracted process, will he accept our new clause 8, which introduces an element of speed into the process, particularly in the early stages? If he will not, why not?
      Mr. Lammy: I shall come on to new clause 8, which is designed to specify a period of six weeks directly in the Bill. That would be unhelpful.
      Let us examine what a person challenging an immigration decision can reasonably expect in this country. A person clearly has a right to expect an appeal to be heard fairly in a court, where the facts of the case can be put forward. If the case has merit, and the people do not have sufficient funds to meet the cost themselves, they can expect to be legally represented. Under our system, they will be able to do so.
      They can expect the decision to be taken by a member of the judiciary who is completely independent of the original decision maker, and who is an expert in immigration law.
      That is what appellants will be able to do under our system. Our measures fully deliver all that a person challenging an immigration decision could reasonably expect. We have designed a new system to ensure that there is improved quality, end to end, which builds on existing best practice and expertise in the current system.
      Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister at least acknowledge that the system that he is putting in place is entirely different from that which a person would reasonably expect if they were going through a court procedure? If a market trader is denied his market stall, he can go to the magistrates court. If he does not like the decision of the magistrates court, he can go to the Crown court, and then have his case judicially reviewed. However, the Minister is proposing an entirely different system, which will deny all access to the higher courts. How can he say that that is compatible with our legal system?
      Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman has referred to principles, so let us return to fundamental principles, and look at the European convention on human rights. I have that document here. Article 13 of the ECHR says that the applicant should be able, in seeking an effective remedy, to have independent scrutiny of the original decision. What in the system that we propose will not give the applicant independent scrutiny? In fact, our system contains not only the single tier of appeal but the review tier, so we meet and go beyond our obligations, and the applicant will have the fair hearing that the hon. Gentleman wants him to have.
      Mr. Grieve: I have always understood that the Human Rights Act 1998 lays down certain minimum standards. There are countries within the scope of adherence to the ECHR about whose human rights record there are grave doubts. Why should we in this country abandon a superior system and reduce ourselves to the level of the lowest common denominator? Is not that one of the mischiefs that the 1998 Act has brought in, because the Government use it frequently and consistently to diminish rights?
      Mr. Lammy: We are not only meeting the obligations of the ECHR but going beyond them. The hon.

      697
      Gentleman asks why we are introducing this system, and I shall tell him. This is what I tell my constituents and what I believe all hon. Members should be saying to theirs. It is because between October 2002 and September 2003, the adjudicator appeal stage received 70,198 appeals, of which just under 59,000 were dismissed. It is because the Immigration Appeal Tribunal received just over 33,000 appeals, of which just under 2,000 were allowed. It is because of that—because people are playing the system—that the Government must act to deal with what is in effect an abuse of process in a system that does not give people finality. We must have finality, which will benefit the genuine asylum seeker. It will also benefit social cohesion up and down the country and meet our obligation to ensure that we have a fair system for asylum seekers and for taxpayers.
      However, an appellant cannot and should not expect there to be an appeal process with multiple stages, through which they can avoid removal. Those who have no legitimate right to remain in the country simply cannot go on responding to every negative decision by mounting a further challenge. We cannot have an endless process of challenge after challenge.
      Mr. Gummer: Can the Minister explain to me why a market trader who happens to be British can make a proper appeal, whereas someone who is fighting for his life and who happens to be foreign is going to have less chance of a proper appeal? Is that not to have two categories of law? Why is the Minister daring to introduce that into this country?
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Lammy: I am doing that because—I shall put it very simply to the right hon. Gentleman—the market trader has no incentive to delay the system. In every other field of law, the applicant or claimant wants speed. He wants the judgment quickly. In this field there are in practice—I have given the statistics—far too many applicants, sometimes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) suggested, aided by unscrupulous solicitors who seek to exploit the system. We have to deal with that. In a sense, it is not justice. It is certainly not justice for the British taxpayer who has to foot the Bill.
      Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister may have misunderstood my point. My concern is the very poor quality of representation that many applicants have because of the inefficiencies of the legal aid system. They thus lose their right to the limited justice that they get under the present system, never mind under a future one.
      Mr. Lammy: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we have introduced the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner, and taken all the action that we have on accreditation, to ensure that not only solicitors, but advisers, are up to speed and doing their best by those who would claim asylum.
      Vera Baird: Can the Minister tell me of any other area of our justice system in which a person is allowed only one judicial hearing, and no appeal? If he is going to
      698
      permit, in excess of what is required of him, a review of that single decision, why not make that an independent one, and satisfy everyone?
      Mr. Lammy: My hon. and learned Friend will know that judges in our system are not just independent of the Executive; they are independent of themselves, that is, they are independent of each other. Under this provision, the applicant, legally aided, who challenges the decision of the state and the IND—the immigration and nationality directorate—has an appeal to the new asylum and immigration tribunal. Then, if a clear error of law means that the decision would be substantially altered, he has a review mechanism. All the judges in the AIT are independent of each other. That is fundamental to our decision, and it is that rule that allowed the House of Lords to review its own decision in the Pinochet case. In a sense, that is what I seek to rely on in this matter. I have no doubt that the majority of the public agree with the balanced approach that we are taking.
      It might be helpful if I explain a little more about how the system will work. As in the current system, a person with a statutory right to appeal against an immigration decision will be able to exercise that right of appeal to an independent judicial body. When lodging the appeal, the appellant will be expected to bring forward all the grounds of that appeal and any statement of additional grounds.
      Mr. Garnier: The Minister has mentioned speed and efficiency on a number of occasions. Why, when he brandishes the European convention on human rights in his right hand, does he disapply it with his left hand through the Bill? Will he explain his horror of the Human Rights Act 1998—which his Government introduced—in so far as it reflects on this Bill?
      Mr. Lammy: This has already been explained to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has much legal experience. I would have hoped that he would understand it. We have obligations under article 13, and we are meeting them with independent scrutiny. Should an applicant choose to raise human rights points, he will be able to do so on appeal and through the review mechanism.
      Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend said earlier that asylum seekers—and economic migrants generally, I suppose—had a vested interest in delay. On the contrary: to my mind, one of the worst aspects of being an asylum seeker or any type of economic migrant is the administrative limbo in which they can spend years and years. Why will my hon. Friend not listen to colleagues on the Constitutional Affairs Committee and do something about the quality of the decisions at the first tier, before he moves on to this drastic measure of curtailing appeal rights?
      Mr. Lammy: I know that my hon. Friend cares passionately about these issues and has campaigned on them for many years, but we are doing something about the initial decisions made by the immigration and nationality directorate. We have external scrutiny of those decisions through sampling by Treasury solicitors, and we are seeking to do more with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Yes, we want to do

      699
      more in terms of those initial decisions. There are ways in which we can make them better, which is why we set up the country information panels. These are panels of experts who help our caseworkers and senior caseworkers to make their determinations. There has been improvement in the initial decisions over the last three or four years, since hon. Members began to raise these issues.
      The majority of appeals will be listed for hearing before a single immigration judge. These judges, although independent and sitting alone, will have access to much better support and guidance than they do now. There will be a new collegiate structure for the judiciary in the tribunal. If a difficult point arises, the immigration judge will have the opportunity to discuss it with his or her experienced judicial colleague.
      Several hon. Members: rose—
      Mr. Lammy: I would just like to make this point. It is important, and several hon. Members have raised it.
      I want to assure those hon. Members who have raised this issue that there is absolutely no threat to judicial independence. We value the independence of the judiciary very highly. Adjudicators already work within judicial management structures. I want to reassure the House that I absolutely guarantee that at no time will determinations ever be altered by a more senior judge.
      Keith Vaz: I do not blame the Minister personally, or his Department, for this mess. I blame the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration and her Department. If the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) had come to the Dispatch Box with a package of measures to improve the operation of the Home Office—I know that the Home Secretary also feels that the culture of the Home Office needs to be changed in relation to decision making—we could understand that. He has, however, come to the Dispatch Box after the passage of this Bill through Committee with no new measures to make such improvements. That is the real problem.
      Mr. Lammy: I sit with the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration on the joint supervisory board for asylum and immigration. The Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs have considered these matters across the board and we are doing a great deal to improve quality at the initial decision stage and at the first tier, to ensure that those who arrive here get a fair hearing.
      I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that I did not say that asylum seekers sought to play the system. What I said was that we need to make the system fair for genuine asylum seekers. I believe that a speeded-up process without multiple layers will achieve that. We also need to acknowledge that we cannot sustain a system in which just over 33,000 people sought leave to appeal at the second stage, and in which only 2,000 of those appeals were allowed.
      Mr. Gerrard: Is not the immigration appellate tribunal already pretty good at filtering out the cases
      700
      that stand no real chance? Of the cases that are considered, a significant number succeed. The tribunal already filters out those without merit quite efficiently.
      Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend must remember that within the single tier we have the mechanism of a review, headed by a High Court judge. The average legal experience of a judge in the tribunal, prior to becoming an old-style adjudicator, is 22 and a half years. The average experience of those who have become adjudicators—we have expanded the number—is just under five years more. We are talking about people making important determinations for asylum seekers in this country who have just shy of 30 years' legal experience. This is not some second-rate, old-style system. It is an important system that will consider important matters.
      Mr. Bacon: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
      Mr. Lammy: I am going to make some progress. I have five minutes remaining and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) wants to speak as well.
      From the outset, some appeals will be listed for hearing before a panel of immigration judges. These will be listed if it is thought that that the appeal may give rise to a complex or novel issue where authoritative case law is required. It may be possible that complexity will emerge during or after a hearing by a single judge; if so, the case will be re-listed to be heard by a panel. The appeal determinations made by the tribunal should be final, and the decisions fully comply with our obligations under article 13. We are not stopping there, which is why we have the review mechanism within the tribunal.
      Rob Marris: I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend is proposing, but the sticking point for me is the removal of the right to judicial review. He will know that in order to go for judicial review, the applicant needs to get leave for judicial review under RSC order 53; therefore, there is a filtering mechanism in the system already. I urge him to retain that filtering mechanism under RSC order 53 and to retain judicial review as a bulwark for the protection of the individual against the state.
      Mr. Lammy: Under proposed new section 108B, where there is a clear error of law that would substantially alter the original decision, the person will be able to have that review, which will be conducted by a High Court judge. The mechanism exists within the single tier.
      I should add that the new appeal structure will preserve a continuing role for the appellate courts. We propose in proposed new section 108B a new referral process to the Court of Appeal or the Court of Session. This enables the tribunal to benefit from the appellate court's expert opinion, but without reintroducing opportunities for deliberate delay.
      I wish to refer to Government amendments Nos. 78 to 81 and to amendment No. 97, tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). The Government amendments respond to concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and

      701
      other hon. Members. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for amendment No. 97 and I hope that he finds that the Government amendments meet his concerns. The Government amendments clarify the scope of the ouster provision in proposed new section 108B. They make clear the Government's intention that legitimate challenges to IND decisions, particularly those decisions on arrest or detention, will not come within the scope of the ouster, which applies only to removal or deportation decisions.
      Mr. Garnier: One of the many points that concern me about the Minister's remarks was his suggestion that judges should have discussions. Will those discussions be in open court? Will they be recorded, so that the applicant or the Home Office can hear the content of them? Will they be secret discussions, unavailable to public scrutiny?
      Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman makes his point badly.
      In conclusion, our proposal is fair and just, it includes a review mechanism and it meets our obligations under European—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Bacon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is right that the House should know whether the certificate from the Home Secretary that the original Bill is in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998 stands, as it is not on this Bill—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's point is one for debate rather than a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Lammy: May I confirm that of course the certificate stands? We have that obligation to the House when we introduce a Bill, but not when the Bill is changed; it will be there again when we introduce—
      It being Nine o'clock MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
      The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 303.

      Division No.63]

      [9.00pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Caton, Martin

      Allan, Richard

      Chidgey, David

      Austin, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Baker, Norman

      Coleman, lain

      Barnes, Harry

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Barrett, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Oyer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Breed, Colin

      Doughty, Sue

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Burden, Richard

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Burnett, John

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Burnside, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Burstow, Paul

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Foster, Don(Bath)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Gamier, Edward

      702

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Gerrard, Neil

      Dinefwr)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Gummer, rh John

      Rendel, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Hancock, Mike

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W&

      Salmond, Alex

      Abingdon

      Sanders, Adrian

      Harvey, Nick

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Heath, David

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Holmes, Paul

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Highgate)

      Teather, Sarah

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Thomos, Simon(Ceredigion)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Thurso, John

      Keetch, Paul

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Lamb, Norman

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Weir, Michael

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      McDonnell, John

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Willis, Phil

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Winnick, David

      Moore, Michael

      Wishart, Pete

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Őpik, Lembit

      Richard Younger-Ross and

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Ainger, Nick

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cairns, David

      Alexander, Douglas

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

      Casale, Roger

      Darwen)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Challen, Colin

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Chapman, Ben (Wirrai S)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Chaytor, David

      Banks, Tony

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Battle, John

      Pentlands)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Beard, Nigel

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Chryston)

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Clelland, David

      Benn, rh Hilary

      Coaker, Vernon

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Berry, Roger

      Colman, Tony

      Betts, Clive

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Blackman, Liz

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cooper, Yvette

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cranston, Ross

      Blunkett, rh David

      Crausby, David

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Cruddas, Jon

      Borrow, David

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Cummings, John

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

      Bradshaw, Ben

      (Copeland)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Wallsend)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Browne, Desmond

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bryant, Chris

      David, Wayne

      Burgon, Colin

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Burnham, Andy

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      703

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Edwards, Huw

      Kidney, David

      Efford, Clive

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Farrelly, Paul

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bow)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Flint, Caroline

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lammy, David

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      &Rye)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Foulkes, rh George

      Lepper, David

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gapes, Mike (Word S)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Gardiner, Barry

      Linton, Martin

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Love, Andrew

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Godsiff, Roger

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Goggins, Paul

      McCabe, Stephen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Grogan, John

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hain, rh Peter

      MacDougall, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Hanson, David

      McKechin, Ann

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      McNulty, Tony

      Rhymney)

      Mac.Shane, Denis

      Healey, John

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McWalter, Tony

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McWilliam, John

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mallaber, Judy

      Heppell, John

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hermon, Lady

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Marshall, David (Glasgow

      Heyes, David

      Shettleston)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Merron, Gillian

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Sefton E)

      Miliband, David

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Miller, Andrew

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Urmston)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

      Mole, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Moran, Margaret

      Hutton, rh John

      Morley, Elliot

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Morris, rh Estelle

      lllsley, Eric

      Mountford, Kali

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Mullin, Chris

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jamieson, David

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hatfield)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

      Owen, Albert

      704

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Squire, Rachel

      Pearson, Ian

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Perham, Linda

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Picking, Anne

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      Pickthall, Colin

      Lochaber)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Plaskitt, James

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Pollard, Kerry

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Straw, rh Jack

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Stringer, Graham

      Pound, Stephen

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      E)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Prescott, rh John

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Timms, Stephen

      Purchase, Ken

      Tipping, Paddy

      Purnell, James

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Trickett, Jon

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      Kemptown)

      Bellshill)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Anniesland)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      NW

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rooney, Terry

      Ward, Claire

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Watts, David

      Ruane, Chris

      White, Brian

      Ruddock, Joan

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Chester)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Wills, Michael

      Salter, Martin

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Savidge, Malcolm

      C

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Woolas, Phil

      Sheridan, Jim

      Worthington, Tony

      Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Yarmouth)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      Wyatt, Derek

      Lunesdale)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Charlotte Atkins

      Question accordingly negatived.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERthen proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to he concluded at that hour.

    Clause 11

      UNIFICATION OF APPEAL SYSTEM
      Amendment proposed: No. 93, in page 11, line 25, at end insert—
      '(5A) A party to the Tribunal's decision may apply within 7 days to the High Court or, in Scotland, to the Court of Session for review of the Tribunal's decision on the ground that the Tribunal made an error of law.
      5B) Where an application is made under this subsectionߞ

      (a)it shall be determined by a single judge by reference only to written submissions, unless the court on receiving such submissions is of the opinion that there are exceptional reasons for an oral hearing;

      (b)the judge may affirm or reverse the Tribunal's decision, or remit for rehearing to the Tribunal;

      (c)if, in any application to the High Court, the judge thinks that the application had no merit he shall issue a certificate under this paragraph.

      (5C) Where the High Court or in Scotland the Court of Session affirms or reverses a review under this section a party to the review may bring an appeal as a point of law within 7 daysߞ

      (a) where the original decision was that of a judge of the Court of Session in Scotland to the Inner House of that Court; or

      (b) in any other case, to the Court of Appeal.

      (5D) An appeal under subsection (5C) may be brought only with the permission ofߞ

      (a) the court that made it, or

      (b) the court referred to in subsection (5C)(a) or (b) if the High Court or Court of Session in Scotland refuses permission.

      (5E) An application made under subsection (5D)(b) must be made within 7 days of the refusal of permission to appeal by the High court of Appeal.'—[Mr. Grieve.]
      Question put, That the amemendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 188,Noes 310.

      Division No. 64]

      [9.14 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Allan, Richard

      Duncan Smith, rh lain

      Amess, David

      Evans, Nigel

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bacon, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Baker, Norman

      Field, Mark (Cities of London &

      Baldry, Tony

      Westminster)

      Barker, Gregory

      Fisher, Mark

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Flook, Adrian

      Barrett, John

      Forth, rh Eric

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Gamier, Edward

      Boswell, Tim

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Brady, Graham

      Gidley, Sandra

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodman, Paul

      Breed, Colin

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Grayling, Chris

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Burnett, John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Burns, Simon

      Greenway, John

      Burnside, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Burstow, Paul

      Gummer, rh John

      Burt, Alistair

      Hammond, Philip

      Butterfill, Sir John

      Hancock, Mike

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

      Cameron, David

      Abingdon)

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

      Harvey, Nick

      Fife)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Cash, William

      Heald, Oliver

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

      Heath, David

      Barnet)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Chidgey, David

      Hendry, Charles

      Chope, Christopher

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Clappison, James

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Holmes, Paul

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Collins, Tim

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Conway, Derek

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cotter, Brian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Howden)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Doughty, Sue

      Keetch, Paul

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      706

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Salmond, Alex

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lamb, Norman

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lansley, Andrew

      Simmonds, Mark

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Lidington, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Streeter, Gary

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Stunell, Andrew

      Loughton, Tim

      Swayne, Desmond

      Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

      Swire, Hugo (EDevon)

      Mcintosh, Miss Anne

      Syms, Robert

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Maclean, rh David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Maples, John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Teather, Sarah

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Thurso, John

      Moore, Michael

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tredinnick, David

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Norman, Archie

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Viggers, Peter

      Öpik, Lembit

      Waterson, Nigel

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Ottaway, Richard

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Page, Richard

      Weir, Michael

      Paice, James

      Whittingdale, John

      Paterson, Owen

      Wiggin, Bill

      Pickles, Eric

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Dinefwr)

      Willis, Phil

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Pugh, Dr. John

      (Macclesfield)

      Randall, John

      Wishart, Pete

      Redwood, rh John

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Rendel, David

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Hugh Robertson and

      Ruffley, David

      Mr. Mark Francois

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ainger, Nick

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Blunkett, rh David

      Alexander, Douglas

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Allen, Graham

      Borrow, David

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Darwen)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Brennan, Kevin

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

      Austin, John

      Wallsend)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Banks, Tony

      Browne, Desmond

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Bryant, Chris

      Battle, John

      Burden, Richard

      Bayley, Hugh

      Burgon, Colin

      Beard, Nigel

      Burnham, Andy

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Cairns, David

      Benn, rh Hilary

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Benton, Joe (Booth)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Berry, Roger

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Betts, Clive

      Casale, Roger

      Blackman, Liz

      Caton, Martin

      707

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Challen, Colin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Heppell, John

      Chaytor, David

      Hermon, Lady

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Pentlands)

      Heyes. David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Chryston)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Clelland, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

      Coaker, Vernon

      Sefton E)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Colman, Tony

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Urmston)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cranston, Ross

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Crausby, David

      Hutton, rh John

      Cruddas, Jon

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      lllsley, Eric

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Cummings, John

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      (Copeland)

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Hatfield)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      David, Wayne

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Doran, Frank

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Kidney, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Efford, Clive

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

      Etherington, Bill

      Bow)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lammy, David

      Flint, Caroline

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lepper, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rye)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Foulkes, rh George

      Linton, Martin

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Love, Andrew

      Gapes, Mike (llfordS)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McCabe, Stephen

      Gilroy, Linda

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Godsiff, Roger

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Goggins, Paul

      MacDonald, Calum

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      MacDougall, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Grogan, John

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Hain, rh Peter

      McKechin, Ann

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hanson, David

      McNulty, Tony

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      MacShane, Denis

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Healey, John

      McWalter, Tony

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McWilliam, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      708

      Mallaber, Judy

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Chester)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Salter, Martin

      Marshall, David (Glasgow

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Shettleston)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Martlew, Eric

      Sheerman, Barry

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Merron, Gillian

      Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Skinner, Dennis

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Miliband, David

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      Moffatt, Laura

      Lunesdale)

      Mole, Chris

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Moran, Margaret

      Squire, Rachel

      Morley, Elliot

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mountford, Kali

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      Mullin, Chris

      Lochaber)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Straw, rh Jack

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Hara, Edward

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Olner, Bill

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Organ, Diana

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Owen, Albert

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Pearson, Ian

      Timms, Stephen

      Perham, Linda

      Tipping, Paddy

      Picking, Anne

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Trickett, Jon

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pound, Stephen

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      E)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Ward, Claire

      Prescott, rh John

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Watts, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      White, Brian

      Purchase, Ken

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Purnell, James

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Wills, Michael

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Winnick, David

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      C)

      Bellshill)

      Woolas, Phil

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      Worthington, Tony

      Anniesland)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

      Yarmouth)

      NW)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Rooney, Terry

      Wyatt, Derek

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ruane, Chris

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Ruddock, Joan

      Charlotte Atkins

      Question accordingly negatived.

  Schedule

    REPEALS
    Amendment proposed: No 33, in page 41 line 24, second column at beginning insert 'Section'55—[Mr. Gerrard]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 84, Noes 305.

    Division No. 65]

    [9:29 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

    Austin, John

    Highgate)

    Baker, Norman

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Barnes, Harry

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Barrett, John

    Keetch, Paul

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Lamb, Norman

    Breed, Colin

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Burnett, John

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Burnside, David

    McDonnell, John

    Burstow, Paul

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert Moore, Michael

    Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Fife)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

    Caton, Martin

    Dinefwr)

    Chidgey, David

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Cohen, Harry

    Reid, Alan (Argyll &Bute)

    Coleman, lain

    Rendel, David

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Cotter, Brian

    Salmond, Alex

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Dawson, Hilton

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Doughty, Sue

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Etherington, Bill

    Stunell, Andrew

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Fisher, Mark

    Teather, Sarah

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Thurso, John

    Galloway, George

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Webb, Steve (Northavon) Weir, Michael

    Hancock, Mike

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Abingdon)

    Willis, Phil

    Harvey, Nick

    Wishart, Pete

    Heath, David

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Holmes, Paul

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Mr. Neil Gerrard and

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Ms Karen Buck

    NOES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Berry, Roger

    Ainger, Nick

    Betts, Clive

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Blackman, Liz

    Alexander, Douglas

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Allen, Graham

    Blizzard, Bob

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Blunkett, rh David

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Darwen)

    Borrow, David

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Banks, Tony

    Brennan, Kevin

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

    Battle, John

    Wallsend)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Beard, Nigel

    Browne, Desmond

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Bryant, Chris

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Burden, Richard

    Bell, Sir Stuart

    Burgon, Colin

    Benn, rh Hilary

    Burnham, Andy

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Byers, rh Stephen

    710

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Cairns, David

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Healey, John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Casale, Roger

    Hendrick, Mark

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Challen, Colin

    Heppell, John

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hermon, Lady

    Chaytor, David

    Hesford, Stephen

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

    Heyes, David

    Pentlands)

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Chryston)

    Sefton E)

    Clelland, David

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Urmston)

    Colman, Tony

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Cranston, Ross

    Hutton, rh John

    Crausby, David

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Cruddas, Jon

    Illsley, Eric

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Cummings, John

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

    Jamieson, David

    (Copeland)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Hatfield)

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    David, Wayne

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

    Doran, Frank

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Kidney, David

    Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Edwards, Huw

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Effortd, Clive

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Bow)

    Farrelly, Paul

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Lammy, David

    Flint, Caroline

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Lepoer, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

    Leslie, Christopher

    &Rye)

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Foulkes, rh George

    Linton, Martin

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Love, Andrew

    Gapes, Mike (llfordS)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    McCabe, Stephen

    Gilroy, Linda

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Godsiff, Roger

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Goggins, Paul

    MacDonald, Calum

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    MacDougall, John

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Grogan, John

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Hain, rh Peter

    McKechin, Ann

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    McMulty, Tony

    Hanson, David

    MacShane, Denis

    711

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    McWalter, Tony

    Ruane, Chris

    McWilliam, John

    Ruddock, Joan

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of

    Mallaber, Judy

    Chester)

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Salter, Martin

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Marshall, David (Glasgow

    Sheridan, Jim

    Shettleston)

    Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Merron, Gillian

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

    Michael, rh Alun

    Lunesdale)

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Miliband, David

    Squire, Rachel

    Miller, Andrew

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Moffatt, Laura

    Stewart, David (Inverness E &

    Mole, Chris

    Lochaber)

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Moran, Margaret

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Morley, Elliot

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Mountford, Kali

    Straw, rh Jack

    Mullin, Chris

    Stringer, Graham

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Olner, Bill

    Timms, Stephen

    Organ, Diana

    Tipping, Paddy

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Owen, Albert

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Trickett, Jon

    Pearson, Ian

    Truswell, Paul

    Perham, Linda

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Picking, Anne

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

    Pickthall, Colin

    Kemptown)

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Plaskitt, James

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Pound, Stephen

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

    Ward, Claire

    E)

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Watts, David

    Prescott, rh John

    White, Brian

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Purchase, Ken

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Purnell, James

    Wills, Michael

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    C)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Woolas, Phil

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Worthington, Tony

    Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

    Bellshill)

    Yarmouth)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Anniesland)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

    NW)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Rooney, Terry

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Charlotte Atkins

    Question accordingly negatived

  New Clause 8

    INITIAL DECISIONS
    (1) Initial decisions by the Secretary of State on anylum applications shall be made and notified to the application within six weeks of the application being made.
    (2) Notice of appeal from the decision of the Secretary of State to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ("the Tribunal")—

    (a)must be made in writing;

    (b)must be lodged with the Tribunal within 14 days of the
    decision appealed against, and

    (c)must list all the grounds on which the appeal is made.

    (3) Within 14days of receipt of the notice of appeal the Tribunal shall hold a direction hearing at which all parties to the appeal shall be present.'.—[Mr. Malins.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time—
    The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 317.

    Division No. 66]

    [9.43 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Field, Mark (Cities of London &

    Allan, Richard

    Westminster)

    Amess, David

    Flook, Adrian

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Forth, rh Eric

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Bacon, Richard

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Baker, Norman

    Gamier, Edward

    Baldry, Tony

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Barker, Gregory

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Barrett, John

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Grayling, Chris

    Bellingham, Henry

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Boswell, Tim

    Grieve, Dominic

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Gummer, rh John

    Brady, Graham

    Hammond, Philip

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Hancock, Mike

    Brazier, Julian

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

    Breed, Colin

    Abingdon)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Harvey, Nick

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Hawkins, Nick

    Burnett, John

    Heald, Oliver

    Burns, Simon

    Heath, David

    Burnside, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Burstow, Paul

    Hendry, Charles

    Burt, Alistair

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Butterfill, Sir John

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Holmes, Paul

    Cameron, David

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Fife)

    Jack, rh Michael

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cash, William

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Barnet)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Chidgey, David

    Keetch, Paul

    Chope, Christopher

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Clappison, James

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Collins, Tim

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Conway, Derek

    Lamb, Norman

    Cotter, Brian

    Lansley, Andrew

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Howden)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Lidington, David

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Doughty, Sue

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    Loughton, Tim

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

    Evans, Nigel

    Mcintosh, Miss Anne

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Fabricant, Michael

    Maclean, rh David

    Fallon, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    713

    Malins, Humfrey

    Steen, Anthony

    Maples, John

    Streeter, Gary

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Stunell, Andrew

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Swayne, Desmond

    Moore, Michael

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Syms, Robert

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Norman, Archie

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    ÖOpik, Lembit

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Teather, Sarah

    Ottaway, Richard

    Thurso, John

    Page, Richard

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Paice, James

    Tredinnick, David

    Paterson, Owen

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Pickles, Eric

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Viggers, Peter

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Walter, Robert

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Waterson, Nigel

    Randall, John

    Watkinson, Angela

    Redwood, rh John

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Weir, Michael

    Rendel, David

    Whittingdale, John

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Wiggin, Bill

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Ruffley, David

    Willis, Phil

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas

    Salmond, Alex

    (Macclesfield)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Wishart, Pete

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Shepherd, Richard

    Young, rh Sir George

    Simmonds, Mark

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Hugh Robertson and

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Mr. Mark Francois

    NOES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Browne, Desmond

    Ainger, Nick

    Bryant, Chris

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Alexander, Douglas

    Burden, Richard

    Allen, Graham

    Burgon, Colin

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Burnham, Andy

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Darwen)

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Cairns, David

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Austin, John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Baird, Vera

    Casale, Roger

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Caton, Martin

    Battle, John

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Challen, Colin

    Beard, Nigel

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Chaytor, David

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Bell, Sir Stuart

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

    Benn, rh Hilary

    Pentlands)

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Berry, Roger

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Betts, Clive

    Chryston)

    Blackman, Liz

    Clelland, David

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Coaker, Vernon

    Blizzard, Bob

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Blunkett, rh David

    Cohen, Harry

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Colman, Tony

    Borrow, David

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Brennan, Kevin

    Cranston, Ross

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Crausby, David

    714

    Cruddas, Jon

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hutton, rh John

    Cummings, John

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

    Ingram, rh Adam

    (Cope/and)

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Jamieson, David

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Jenkins, Brian

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

    David, Wayne

    Hatfield)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Jones, Martyn (C/wydS)

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Doran, Frank

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

    Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

    Efford, Clive

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kidney, David

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Farrelly, Paul

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Bow)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Flint, Caroline

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Foster, rh Derek

    Lammy, David

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Rye)

    Lepper, David

    Foulkes, rh George

    Leslie, Christopher

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Gapes, Mike (llfordS)

    Linton, Martin

    Gardiner, Barry

    Love Andrew

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gilroy, Linda

    McCabe, Stephen

    Godsiff, Roger

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Goggins, Paul

    MacDonald, Calum

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McDonnell, John

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    MacDougall, John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Grogan, John

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Hain, rh Peter

    McKechin, Ann

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    McNulty, Tony

    Hanson, David

    MacShane, Denis

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    McWalter, Tony

    Healey, John

    McWilliam, John

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hendrick, Mark

    Manclelson, rh Peter

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Mann, John (Basset/aw)

    Heppell, John

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Hermon, Lady

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Marshall, David (Glasgow

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Shettleston)

    Heyes, David

    Martlew, Eric

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Merron, Gillian

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Miliband, David

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Miller, Andrew

    Sefton E)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Mole, Chris

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Urmston)

    Moran, Margaret

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Morley, Elliot

    715

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Mountford, Kali

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

    Mullin, Chris

    Lunesdale)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Smith. Jacqui (Redditch)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Smith Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Squire, Rachel

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    O'Hara, Edward

    Stewart, David (Inverness E &

    Olner, Bill

    Lochaber)

    Organ, Diana

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Owen, Albert

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Pearson, Ian

    Straw rh Jack

    Perham, Linda

    Stringer, Graham

    Picking, Anne

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pickthall, Colin

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Plaskitt, James

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Timms, Stephen

    Pound, Stephen

    Tipping, Paddy

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

    Todd. Mark (S Derbyshire)

    E)

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Trickett, Jon

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Truswell, Paul

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Purchase, Ken

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

    Purnell, James

    Kemptown)

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Bellshill)

    Ward, Claire

    Robertson, John (Glasgow

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Anniesland)

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

    Watts, David

    NW)

    White, Brian

    Rooney, Terry

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Ruane, Chris

    Wills Michael

    Ruddock, Joan

    Winnick, David

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

    Chester)

    C

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Woolas, Phil

    Salter, Martin

    Worthington, Tony

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Yarmouth)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Wyail, Derek

    Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Charlotte Atkins

    Question accordingly negatived.,
    Remaining Government amendments agreed to.

  New Clause 2

    PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION SERVICES
    (1) For section 84(2) and (3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (person qualified to provide immigration services) substituteߞ
    "(2) A person is a qualified person if he isߞ

    (a) a registered person,

    716

    (b) authorised by a designated professional body to practise as a member of the profession whose members the body regulates,

    (c) the equivalent in an EEA State ofߞ

    (i)a registered person, or

    (ii)a person within paragraph (b),

    (d) a person permitted, by virtue of exemption from a prohibition, to provide in an EEA State advice or services equivalent to immigration advice or services, or

    (e) acting on behalf of, and under the supervision of, a person within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) (whether or not under a contract of employment).

    (3) Subsection (2)(a) and (e) are subject to any limitation on the effect of a person's registration imposed under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 6."
    (2) In section 85(1) of that Act (registration by the Commissioner) omit "and (b)".
    (3) In section 89 of that Act (disciplinary charge upheld by Immigration Services Tribunal)
    —
    (a) for subsections (2) and (3) substituteߞ
    "(2) If the person charged is a registered person or acts on behalf of a registered person, the Tribunal may

    (a) direct the Commissioner to record the charge and the Tribunal's decision for consideration in connection with the registered person's next application for continued registration;

    (b) direct the registered person to apply for continued registration as soon as is reasonably practicable.", and

    (c) in subsection (8) for "employed by him or working" substitute "acting on his behalf or".

    (4) In section 90(4) of that Act (orders by disciplinary bodies) for "works under the supervision of" substitute "is acting on behalf of".
    (5) In Schedule 5 to that Act (Immigration Services Commissioner)—

    (a) for paragraph 1(1)(b) substitute—

    "(b) those acting on behalf of registered persons,",

    (b) for paragraph 1(3)(b) substitute—

    "(b) any person acting on behalf of that person.",

    (c) for paragraph 3(3)(b) substitute—

    "(b) a person who is acting on behalf of a person who is within paragraph (a);",

    (d) for paragraph 4(1)(b) substitute—

    "(b) persons acting on behalf of persons who are within paragraph (a).",

    (e) in paragraph 5(3)(b) for "employed by, or working under the supervision of," substitute "acting on behalf of",

    (f) for paragraph 5(3)(e) substitute—

    "(e) an alleged breach of a rule of a relevant regulatory body,",

    (g) for paragraph 6(3)(c) substitute—

    "(c) in any other case, refer the matter to any relevant regulatory body.",

    717

    (h) in paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b) for "or a person employed by, or working under the supervision of," substitute "or is acting on behalf of",

    (i) for paragraph 9(1)(c) substitute—

    "(c) refer the complaint and his decision on it to a relevant regulatory body;",

    (j) for paragraphs 9(3)(a) and (b) substitute—

    "(a) imposing restrictions on the provision of immigration advice or immigration services by the relevant person or by a person acting on his behalf or under his supervision;

    (b) prohibiting the provision of immigration advice or immigration services by the relevant person or a person acting on his behalf or under his supervision.", and

    (k) for paragraphs 9(4)(b) to (d) substitute—

    "(b) a person acting on behalf of a registered person;".

    (6) In Schedule 6 to that Act (registration)

    (a) in paragraph 1(1) omit "or (b)", and

    (b) in paragraph 3(7)(a) for "section 89(3)(b)" substitute "section 89(2)(b)".'. —.[Mr. Heppell.]

    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 3

    OFFENCES: ADVICE OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
    `In section 3(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23) (functions of Director of Public Prosecutions) after paragraph (eb) insertߞ
    "(ec) to give, to such extent as he considers appropriate, advice to immigration officers on matters relating to criminal offences;".'.ߞ[Mr. Heppell.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 4

    ENFORCEMENT POWERS: RETENTION OF DOCUMENTS
    `Where a document comes into the possession of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer in the course of the exercise of an immigration function, the Secretary of State or an immigration officer may retain the document while he suspects thatߞ

    (a)a person to whom the document relates may be liable to removal from the United Kingdom in accordance with a provision of the Immigration Acts, and

    (b)retention of the document may facilitate the removal.'.ߞ[Mr. Heppell.]

    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 5

    SEAMEN AND AIRCREWS: RIGHT OF APPEAL
    `In section 82(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) after paragraph (i) insertߞ
    "(ia) a decision that a person is to be removed from the United Kingdom by way of directions under paragraph 12(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c.77) (seamen and aircrews),".'.ߞ[Mr. Heppell.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 6

    CONTROL OF ENTRY
    `After paragraph 2A(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (control of entry: persons arriving with leave to enter) insert—
    "(2A) Where the person's leave to enter derives, by virtue of section 3A(3), from an entry clearance, he may also be examined by an immigration officer for the purpose of establishing whether the leave should be cancelled on the grounds that the person's purpose in arriving in the United Kingdom is different from the purpose specified in the entry clearance."'.ߞ[Mr. Heppell.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 7

    APPEAL FROM WITHIN UNITED KINGDOM
    Tor section 92(3) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (appeal from within United Kingdom: person with entry clearance or work permit) substitute—
    "(3) This section also applies to an appeal against refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom if—

    (a) at the time of the refusal the appellant is in the United Kingdom, and

    (b) on his arrival in the United Kingdom the appellant had entry clearance.

    (3A) But this section does not apply by virtue of subsection (3) if subsection (3B) or (3C) applies to the refusal of leave to enter.
    (3B) This subsection applies to a refusal of leave to enter which is a deemed refusal under paragraph 2A(9) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 resulting from cancellation of leave to enter by an immigration officerߞ

    (a) under paragraph 2A(8) of that Schedule, and

    (b) on the grounds specified in paragraph 2A(2A) of that Schedule.

    (3C) This subsection applies to a refusal of leave to enter which specifies that the grounds for refusal are that the leave is sought for a purpose other than that specified in the entry clearance.
    (3D) This section also applies to an appeal against refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom if at the time of the refusal the appellant—

    (a) is in the United Kingdom,

    (b) has a work permit, and

    (c) is any of the following (within the meaning of the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61))ߞ

    (i) a British overseas territories citizen,

    (ii) a British Overseas citizen,

    (iii) a British National (Overseas),

    (iV) a British protected person, or

    (V) a British subject:.ߞ[Mr. Heppell]

    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How long do we have for Third Reading of this important and controversial Bill?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that as well as I do.
    9.55 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. David Blunkett):I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time

    719
    I thank my ministerial colleagues from the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Whips, all members of the Standing Committee and all hon. Members who participated today. The Bill has been properly and adequately considered. Once we got over using silly words, such as "despicable", about clause 7, we had a sensible debate.
    I am pleased that we have amended the Bill to include trafficking offences to deal with forced labour, and tackled important subjects such as child slavery. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who does not always agree with me, for his work in Committee in drawing attention to that. i am glad that we could make important changes.
    Clause 11 has caused controversy and will cause it in another place. It is a classic example, which shows that had people been more modest in their operation of the law and their approach to their job, they would not have cooked the goose that laid the golden egg. I am talking about lawyers who simply abused the judicial review system by dragging out cases for months and, in some instances, years. That is what happens when those who preach liberalism lead us down the wrong path so that those who try to protect human rights and individual interests find that the system has been so abused that we have to remove the golden thread. The legal aid budget has doubled to £174 million. That is public money that has not gone towards asylum seekers or people in the community but into lawyers' pockets. That is a disgrace that is coming to an end.
    9.57 pm
    Mr. Malins: The Home Secretary is quick to condemn lawyers, but if he had heard today's debate he would realise that the rule of law is under attack from an illiberal Government. If any of us had been asked to accept that, one day, the Executiveߞthe Government of this country ߞwould be exempt from judicial oversight or scrutiny, we would have been, first, amazed, secondly, angry and thirdly, ashamed.
    All the people within this country's jurisdiction should be treated equally under the law. The Government have been universally condemned by their own supporters. Speaker after speaker from the Labour Benches condemned the Government's proposals. Not one hon. Member supported the Government's approach; even the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) was lame in his support.
    On Second Reading, Conservative Members said that we wanted the Bill to be improved in Committee, but it has been improved only a little. The Government have made far too few improvements. Lest it be believed that we debate matters sensibly in the House, I stress that the Government tabled 64 amendments and new clauses today. Many aspects of the Bill have simply not been debated in the House of Commons, either in Committee or the Chamber.
    Appeals provisions are vital for the freedom of the individual, whether he or she is of our nationality or from abroad. All deserve equal treatment. The Bill remains seriously flawed and we cannot actively support it. We shall try to amend it as best we can in the House of Lords. We hope that the Government will have the sense to permit some form of judicial oversight of the Executive.
    720
    The Bill is not only illiberal but grossly unfair to tens of thousands of people. I hope to goodness that I speak for all Conservative Members and most of the Labour party when I say that the Bill needs to be improved in the House of Lords.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time: —
    The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 65.

    Division No. 67]

    [10:00pm

    AYES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Cooper, Yvette

    Allen, Graham

    Cranston, Ross

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Crausby, David

    Anderson, Janet (Ftossendale &

    Cruddas, Jon

    Darwen)

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cummings, John

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

    Bailey, Adrian

    (Copeland)

    Baird, Vera

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Battle, John

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Bayley, Hugh

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Beard, Nigel

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    David, Wayne

    Bell, Sir Stuart

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Benn, rh Hilary

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Berry, Roger

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Betts, Clive

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Blackman, Liz

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Doran, Frank

    Blizzard, Bob

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Blunkett, rh David

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Efford, Clive

    Borrow, David

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Farrelly, Paul

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Brennan, Kevin

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

    Flint, Caroline

    Wallsend)

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Browne, Desmond

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Bryant, Chris

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &

    Burden, Richard

    Rye)

    Burgon, Colin

    Foulkes, rh George

    Burnham, Andy

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Burnside, David

    Gapes, Mike (llford S)

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Gardiner, Barry

    Caborn, rh Richard

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Cairns, David

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Goggins, Paul

    Casale, Roger

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Challen, Colin

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

    Grogan, John

    Chaytor, David

    Hain, rh Peter

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Pentlands)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hanson, David

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Chryston)

    Healey, John

    Clelland, David

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hendrick, Mark

    Colman, Tony

    Hepburn, Stephen

    721

    Heppell, John

    Marris, Rob (Wo/verh'ton SW)

    Hermon, Lady

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Marshall, David (Glasgow

    Heyes, David

    Shettleston)

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Martlew, Eric

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Miliband, David

    Sefton E)

    Miller, Andrew

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Moffatt, Laura

    Urmston)

    Mole, Chris

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Moran, Margaret

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Morley, Elliot

    Hutton, rh John

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Mountford, Kali

    lllsley, Eric

    Mullin, Chris

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jamieson, David

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Jenkins, Brian

    O'Brien, Mike (TV Warks)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

    Olner, Bill

    Hatfield)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Organ, Diana

    Jones, Kevan (TV Durham)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Jones, Martyn (C/wydS)

    Owen, Albert

    Joyce, Eric (Fa/kirk W)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Pearson, Ian

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Perham, Linda

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Picking, Anne

    Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Kemp, Fraser

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Plaskitt, James

    Kidney, David

    Pollard, Kerry

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

    Pound, Stephen

    Bow)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    E)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Lammy, David

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Purchase, Ken

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Purnell, James

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Lepper, David

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Leslie, Christopher

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Linton, Martin

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Love, Andrew

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Anniesland)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

    McCabe, Stephen

    NW)

    McCafferty, Chris

    Rooney, Terry

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Ruddock, Joan

    MacDougall, John

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Chester)

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    McKechin, Ann

    Salter, Martin

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McNulty, Tony

    Sheerman, Barry

    MacShane, Denis

    Sheridan, Jim

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

    McWalter, Tony

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    McWilliam, John

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

    Mallaber, Judy

    Lunesdale)

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Squire, Rachel

    722

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E &

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Lochaber)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Ward, Claire

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Watts, David

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    White, Brian

    Stringer, Graham

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Wills, Michael

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Winnick, David

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    C)

    Timms, Stephen

    Woolas, Phil

    Tipping, Paddy

    Worthington, Tony

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Yarmouth)

    Trickett, Jon

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Truswell, Paul

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

    Kemptown)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Gillian Merron and

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Mr. Nick Ainger

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Keetch, Paul

    Baker, Norman

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Barnes, Harry

    Lamb, Norman

    Barrett, John

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Beith, rh A. J.

    McDonnell, John

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Breed, Colin

    Moore, Michael

    Bumeitt, John

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Burstow, Paul

    Opik, Lembit

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Dinefwr)

    Chidgey, David

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Cotter, Brian

    Rendel, David

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Salmond, Alex

    Doughty, Sue

    Sanders, Adrian

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Galloway, George

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Teather, Sarah

    Gerrard, Neil

    Thurso, John

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Hancock, Mike

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Abingdon)

    Weir, Michael

    Harvey, Nick

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Heath, David

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Holmes, Paul

    Willis, Phil

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Wishart, Pete

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

    Highgate)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Richard Younger-Ross and

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If one of the Tellers standing before the Mace to announce the vote was not the same Teller who counted the Division, is the Division still valid? Is there any precedent for what happened, and are you preparedߞif not now, after a period of reflectionߞto consider whether the Third Reading Division was valid, owing to the fact that the

    723
    hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) sprang forward from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, even though he was not a Teller, and purported to announce the vote? It is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. The House should take such matters seriously; and I believe that we could have established a very dangerous precedent. I hope that you will reflect on the issue, Mr. Speaker, before you tell the House that the Division was valid and substantive.
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. No discourtesy was intended to the House, and I hope that you will feel that what happened was, in all the circumstances, proper and in order.
    Mr. Edward Leigh rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me respond to the points of order, after which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) may not need to raise another one.
    I felt that it was tidy to have four Tellers to report to the House. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has asked me a question, and I am in the process of explaining what is in order. I invited the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to fill the space. The House has to move quickly and the Speaker has to take snap decisions. My snap decision will go into "Erskine May"— [Interruption.] Perhaps in 100 years from now, when a Teller is missing, the House will refer to the precedent that has been established today. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the vote that was delivered was perfectly valid, and that there is no need for a re-run.
    Mr. Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I would never seek to question any of your rulings, but surely the whole point of the Teller system is to have one person who counts and another who checks that; the two then report back to the House. Of course this would not happen now, but there might have been difficulties in the past, and there might be misreporting. I should not want the age-old custom to be in any way upset.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the age-old custom has been protected, because it has been clearly reported to me that there were four Tellers, two counting the Aye votes and two counting the No votes. Therefore, that stage was well and truly completed; only the reporting was different. Three of the original Tellers out of four have reported. That is very tidy, and I do not know what is worrying the hon. Gentleman. If he wants a re-run, I can assure him that it certainly will not be tonight.
    Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the whole point of our voting procedure is to have one Teller for one side of the argument and one for the other. It seems that there was a Government Teller in the Lobby, but we know not whether the other Teller verified what the Government Teller told the Clerks. The House is now in the invidious position of
    724
    not being able to rely on the fact that there were two Tellers, of different points of view, reporting back to the House. That surely must—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that three Tellers out of four have reported the result—
    Mr. Forth:No
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Three Tellers out of four have reported the result to the House. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that both the Government Teller and the Liberal Teller were in the appropriate Lobby, counting the votes. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, so that he does not have a sleepless night, that if the Speaker is wrong, and there was no Teller in that Lobby, he can report to me and I shall deal with the matter. However, I can assure him that the Teller was in the Lobby.
    It must be borne in mind that the Teller concerned was somewhat inexperienced.
    Mr. Forth: That is worse.
    Mr. Speaker: Well, that may be worse, but I have seen the right hon. Gentleman from time to time coaching and helping inexperienced Tellers, and a very nice practice it is too, to help those who are less experienced than he is.
    Perhaps I can now go on to the Northern Ireland orders.
    Mr. Stunell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who has been raising points of order on the conduct of the vote, did not in fact pass through either Lobby, and therefore cannot offer the House any useful information?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must know that I have, rather rapidly, moved on to the next item of business.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Prison (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  Question agreed to
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  POLICE
  That the draft Independent Police Complaints Commission (Investigatory Powers) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved. —[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
  That the draft Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in force of Sections 21 to 23) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 3 March, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003].

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

  LEVEL OF CERTAIN HEAVY METALS AND POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN AMBIENT AIR.
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11645/03, draft Directive relating to arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air; and supports the Government objectives of ensuring appropriate levels of protection for human health and of the environment but also resisting unnecessary measures that might have a disproportionate effect on United Kingdom industry.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  Question agreed to.

VISITOR FACILITIES
Motion made,
That this House approves the First Joint Report of the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee on Visitor Facilities: Access to Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 324) and endorses the Committees' proposals for a new reception and security building at the north end of Cromwell Green.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
Hon. Members Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Ordered,
That Mr Tom Harris be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Kate Hoey be added.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

  Tetra Masts
  10.20 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I have to inform the House that the number of signatories on this petition has not been verified by Tellers, but I am assured that there are 979 of them. My constituents, like those on the Isle of Wight and in neighbouring areas, are concerned about the way in which Tetra masts have been implanted on the landscape without planning permission, and about the implications of this.
  Accordingly, the petition of Dibden residents declares:
  That the erection of a Tetra telecommunications mast by Airwave MMO2 at Home Farm is perceived by the residents as posing a real threat to their health and is in breach of an enforcement order implemented by New Forest district council, who had already refused planning permission.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate steps to halt the roll-out of the Tetra system until such time as it has been proved absolutely and beyond any doubt in the mind of the public that it is completely safe.
  To lie upon the Table.

  School Meals (Essex)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  10.22 pm
  Bob Russell: My debate is about the despicable and callous decision made just before Christmas by Conservative councillors on Essex county council to scrap, with little more than three months' notice, the county's school meals service from 1 April. This is a deplorable act against children, many of whom are from disadvantaged families. Even "milk-snatcher" Thatcher, infamous for doing away with school milk—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is a courtesy that we practise in the House when referring to Members of the upper House to refer to them in the proper way, and not in a manner such as that used by the hon. Gentleman.
  Bob Russell: I am grateful to you for correcting me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Even Baroness Thatcher, the milk-snatcher, never attacked some of the most vulnerable people in our society, depriving children as young as four or five of wholesome, nutritional hot dinners which are so important for their development and well-being.
  For many children, the school dinner is their main meal of the day. For some, it is their only hot meal of the day. That is particularly important at this time of year.
  I urge the Minister tonight, as I urged the Prime Minister on 28 January, to intervene to ensure that Essex county council continues to provide a proper school meals service, as it has done for decades, and ideally to return to what it was prior to the Education Act 1980, which was the first move to undermine the ideals enshrined in the Education Act 1944.
  Unfortunately, the Essex Tories are hiding behind a Government 1999 education order to carry out their dastardly deed to rid themselves of the moral responsibility to maintain a countywide school meals service. Governors of 356 junior, primary and infant schools—all of them volunteers, many of them parents—now find themselves faced with the organisational duties and legal consequences that hitherto were undertaken by paid and professionally qualified full-time officials.
  Mrs. Jan Blackwell, chair of the governors of North primary school in Colchester, tells me:
  "Governors and Headteachers are angry at this sudden extra responsibility in an impossible time-frame. We have little knowledge of Food Hygiene Standards, Nutritional Guidelines and Health and Safety Regulations in the kitchen."
  Immediate revocation of the Government's 1999 order is called for because I cannot that believe it was ever intended that it be used as it is now.
  We also need an explanation from Essex county council as to why it has acted as it has. We need to do whatever is necessary to restore matters to the way they were previously, the objective being to ensure that all parents who require their children to have a hot midday meal—either paid or free, as applicable—can do so.
  If Essex county council is saying that it cannot oversee the school meals service of 27,000 meals each day with its purchasing power as the second-largest local
  728
  education authority in the country, how does it expect individual schools, or perhaps a few schools banding together, to achieve a better deal at very short notice? Some might, and good luck to them, but for those schools that do not have the capacity to do so, the moral responsibility ought to remain with the LEA. Perhaps Essex feels that it is not getting a fair financial deal from the Government to keep the meals service. Whatever the truth—it is academic for parents and the schools—either county hall or Whitehall must find the resources.
  This is not a reckless demand for greater public spending, but rather a plea for joined-up government—at all levels—so the world's fourth-richest economy ensures that no child goes hungry or is deprived of a hot meal for what, in terms of Essex's massive budget and what the national economy generates, is petty cash in comparison.
  Bob Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman think that full consultation prior to taking a decision constitutes joined-up government? Will he ask the Minister to get Essex county council to have such consultation, something for which I called at column 1783 in an Adjournment debate on 18 December?
  Bob Russell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention and I sincerely hope that that will be taken on board. Lack of consultation is one of the major issues that we need to discuss.
  The alternative is the real risk of some children—not just those from backgrounds which are already disadvantaged, but more widely—having their whole development damaged, with consequences for their health sooner or later. With national health service budgets always under pressure, the cost to the public purse ultimately will be greater than if children grow up healthy with a proper diet, of which a school dinner is often the main ingredient.
  Young bodies damaged by lack of proper nourishment throughout their growing years may never recover. With obesity increasing all the time, often through poor diet, doing away with the carefully structured diets that hot school meals should provide will do nothing to help the situation. Essex LEA is setting the scene where, alongside obese children, we could also witness the return of rickets in others. That is irresponsible behaviour by the county hall administration.
  The Government must act. The principles of the national healthy schools standard must be upheld; ditto the children's national service framework to promote healthy diets. It is not good enough to commission such worthy reports as "Securing Good Health for the Whole Population" from Derek Wanless, published only last week, and "Every Child Matters", published last September, and then do nothing when Essex county council undermines the good intentions in those reports by scrapping the school meals service. That service is vital to so many of the county's children, particularly those from disadvantaged families or from families where parents are at work and where the school meal is an important feature of that family's lifestyle.
  I draw the Minister's attention to page 156 of the Wanless report, box 7.3, which states:

  729
  "The issues of food promotion to children and school meals illustrate the importance of the involvement and engagement of stakeholders in public health issues—as awareness, consensus for action and support for future public health measures can all be gained."
  I remind the House that the Prime Minister, in answer to my question to him just over a month ago, said that
  "we believe that the provision of school meals for pupils, especially from the poorest backgrounds, has a beneficial effect on their education. Unfortunately, some of our youngsters go to school without having had a proper meal. It means that they do not learn or pay attention in their lessons as well as they should, and it is for that reason that we are deeply committed to ensuring that the funding is there for local authorities to provide that service. I will look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raises."—[Official Report, 28 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 307.]
  Will the Minister tonight match the Prime Minister's encouraging response?
  I am deeply concerned that, with the ending of hot school dinners and their replacement with packed lunches, those children who currently have free meals will be the only ones served with a packed lunch, provided by bulk delivery or whatever. These will be identical little packages, making it obvious to everybody who is in receipt of a free lunch. Currently, all children having a school dinner sit together; there is no segregation or obvious difference as to who is in receipt of a free dinner and those whose parents can afford to pay. Only people in the office know. Children whose family circumstances qualify them for a free meal—there are around 7,000 in Essex—will in future be exposed, with all the unhappiness that can so often happen as a result of such singling out.
  Although, of course, I recognise that ultimately it is the responsibility of each individual to look after his or her own body, and those of their children, the Government cannot ignore situations such as that to which I have drawn to Parliament's attention. Only last week, the Consumers Association warned:
  "Obesity and diet-related diseases are now seen as Britain's biggest killers."
  The association's call for a nutrition council is welcome. I am sure that such a council would want school meals promoted, not scrapped. Incidentally, getting rid of school meals will not help the Government in their aim of providing better opportunities for working families. School dinners are a great help where one or both parents are working.
  A roll call of schools in my constituency where the reluctant decision has been taken to provide only packed lunches from next month includes the Montgomery infant and junior, the St. Michael's primary, and the King's Ford infant and junior schools. There are others, but I deliberately highlight those five because they are the ones attended by the bulk of children aged under 11 whose parents are members of Her Majesty's armed forces based at the Colchester garrison.
  About 3,000 soldiers from Colchester served in the Iraq war less than a year ago. Currently 600 other soldiers from the town are on peacekeeping duties in Iraq. That is how Conservative councillors reward our troops who put their lives on the line—they deprive their children of hot school dinners.
  730
  I shall be drawing the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence to that scandalous situation. The House needs to know that it is not good for the morale of our troops, and does nothing to help the retention of our professional soldiers, for their children to be going without a hot school dinner because of penny-pinching by those who control the public purse.
  As an aside, I am told that the food allowance per meal that the Home Office makes available for each prisoner is greater than the cost of a school dinner. Is it asking too much for equivalent funding to be provided for the school meals service in Essex, so that the health of our children is given the same consideration as that of prisoners?
  The scrapping of the school meals service in Essex has led to a major outcry right across the county. The only people who seem to be in favour of it are Tory county councillors. Schools are outraged at the short notice they were given—just days before Christmas—that the service would be terminated at the end of March. Heads, teachers, parents, governors have all protested, but all to no avail.
  Two weeks ago, Ms Ruth Brock, chair of the Essex primary heads association, told a packed meeting at Colchester town hall:
  "We did not know that we were going to be left in this situation. Most heads are feeling incredibly dumped upon because we did not know this was going to happen."
  Mrs. Fran Wagstaff, secretary of the local branch of the National Union of Teachers, said:
  "The NUT is concerned about the welfare of many of the pupils who rely on this one hot meal in the middle of the day. This may seem like a saving in the short term, but the long term effect of unhealthy eating will have a greater cost to the nation's health."
  There has been massive media coverage of something that appears more to echo life in Charles Dickens's Victorian Britain than the supposedly more enlightened times of 21st-century Britain. The Colchester Evening Gazette has been running an excellent "Save Our School Dinners" campaign from which I would like to quote extracts. For example, last Wednesday, 25 February, the main headline on its front page stated: "Schools End Hot Dinners". A sub-headline added:
  "Proper meals will be off the menu".
  Chief reporter Laurence Cawley wrote:
  "Hot meals are to be dropped from many school menus in Colchester. Schools across the county have struggled to arrange their own dinners after Essex County Council decided not to renew a central contract with meal providers.
  It left schools having to try to hammer out their own deals with dinner providers within just a few weeks.
  Some have managed to keep their hot dinner service, but many have not. It means hundreds of schoolchildren in and around Colchester will only be offered sandwiches for lunch."
  The head teacher of King's Ford junior school, Mr. Lawrence Garside, told the Gazette:
  "We didn't have the time to get something else sorted out. Budgets are tight and we just cannot afford to lose money on it.
  We are going to have to offer packed lunches. We hope this will just be a stop-gap measure and we will be trying to offer hot dinners as soon as possible. It might be back from September but it is too early to say."

  731
  Over at Montgomery junior school, head teacher Mr. Graham Eskell said that it was likely that the school's kitchens would be decommissioned and added:
  "We feel deep regret about losing a hot meals service. We have not been given enough time to sort this out."
  Meanwhile, at North primary school two cooks, Mrs. Carol Tralau and Mrs. Evie Drummond, who between them have prepared dinners there for a combined total of 40 years, are to lose their jobs. They are typical of the dedicated dinner staff at many schools across Essex who are to be made redundant because of the disgraceful behaviour of the county hall Tories.
  On Thursday, the Evening Gazette carried a full-page article with the comments of pupils at King's Ford junior school, stating that their message
  "came through loud and clear: we love our dinners, please keep them on the menu".
  Seven-year-old Rose Chandler feels so strongly that she has written to the leader of Essex county council, Lord Hanningfield, begging him to rethink the council's decision. She said:
  "I enjoy my hot dinners especially when it is cold outside."
  Ten-year-old Louis Woods said:
  "I don't really like having packed lunches. I have been here four years and I've only missed having a school dinner five times. When the hot dinners go, I think it will be odd … And what will happen to our Christmas dinners? We all sit down and have a Christmas dinner and the teachers bring us our food. It is a special time. And all the dinner ladies here are really nice and good cooks."
  It is worth quoting what the chairman of governors of King's Ford junior school says. Referring to the short time scale given to individual schools to make alternative arrangements, Richard Bourne told the Evening Gazette:
  "It is simply impossible for schools to go through a proper process of decision-making in order to find a new provider in the time they have been given. As a consequence, some children will no longer get a hot dinner.
  This is a disgrace and shames the politicians and bureaucrats at County Hall whose own lavish facilities mean they never go without."
  Mr. Bourne speaks with authority and personal knowledge. He is a Labour county councillor.
  Parents are deeply angered. Their views are summed up by Ms Paula Chandler, of Monkwick, who has organised a petition urging the county council to rethink its position. She said:
  "When parents work shifts, they often have to make children sandwiches at night. They don't want their children having two packed lunches a day.
  And then there's single parents such as myself. It is nice to know they've had a hot meal at school because we lead such busy lives and it takes the pressure off to know they have had a hot meal."
  The decision to scrap the county-run school meals service was sudden. The first that schools knew was just before Christmas when Essex county council said it would no longer be awarding group contracts for dinners—the schools were handed the legal responsibility for providing a school meal, whether hot or cold.
  Mrs. Blackwell, chairman of the governors of North primary school, described matters from her perspective, saying:
  "The LEA decided, after 15 months of negotiation on a group contract for meals as requested by over 340 schools in the county, to abandon and devolve meals to individual schools. I am not
  732
  entirely sure of the legality of this decision. It breaches the contract with the schools. Lord Hanningfield failed to comment when I asked him in a letter.
  Schools effectively had three months to arrange a new contract. Business plans were provided. Most schools were predicted to make a loss—minimum £2,800 for North School. This does not take into consideration the age of the kitchen; replacement, maintenance and repair at North could potentially be very costly.
  Losses would have to be covered from individual school budgets, which are already very tight and predicted to remain at a standstill for the coming year in Essex. This takes money away from the teaching and learning provision of every child in that school. How can this raise standards?
  There is no longer equity for children in Essex, and this decision does not sit comfortably with the Government's Every Child Matters. It also makes a mockery of the Teachers Work Load Agreement.
  No consideration has been given to staff involved, namely Headteachers, Governors and the cooks. They were not included in the discussion nor decision to end the group contract. Many cooks now face redundancy after many years of service."
  Those comments from Mrs. Blackwell will be echoed by chairs of other school governing bodies across Essex. She demonstrates the shabby, shoddy way in which schools in Essex have been treated by the Conservative-controlled county council. Schools are looking to Government to step in to save the school meals service in Essex. The well-being of children, their good health, and the need to ensure that no child is left hungry or under-nourished, demand that urgent action be taken to prevent the service ending at the end of this month.
  It is not enough to say that the responsibility is one for the local education authority, for the LEA has passed the legal responsibility to school governing bodies, which in most instances would prefer not to have it—as a general rule, they do not have the experience or the qualifications to operate the school meals service, they do not have spare revenue funds to finance it, and they have no capital to pay for replacement kitchen equipment in due course.
  Government intervention is the only solution. I urge the Minister to act without delay. Children at schools across Essex, as well as their parents and all involved with the school meals service, will appreciate it. After all, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his introduction to "Every Child Matters",
  "Since 1997 we have tried to put children first. We have increased the focus on prevention through the child poverty strategy, Sure Start and our work to raise school standards. But there is still more to do."
  The executive summary of "Every Child Matters" stresses the need for children to have a healthy lifestyle and to enjoy better health—and for the eradication of child poverty.
  The end of the school meals service in Essex is against what the Government have been striving to achieve. To me, every child matters. I look to the Minister to demonstrate tonight by a promise of immediate action that every child in Essex matters to the Government.
  10.39 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to have the opportunity to support briefly the argument of the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). I first raised this matter at business questions some weeks ago. There is certainly great concern in my area, as well as in the urban area that he represents, and especially in small

  733
  village schools, which do not have the budget to deal with such extra costs. In addition, the percentage involved is much greater as an overall part of their budget than it would be for a larger school. The further difficulty that such small schools have is that the head teacher has to deal with this as well as with all the other administrative tasks that they have.
  Also, larger schools may often have assistants, which smaller schools do not have.
  I am disappointed that the county council on which I served for several years before coming to the House has sought to take this step. It follows fast after its decision to weaken the provision of denominational transport. One had hoped that school meals and transport would be regarded as an integral part of the education service in Essex and that they would continue as hitherto.
  10.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr.Stephen
  Twigg): I welcome the debate that has been instigated by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). The passionate and powerful way in which he sets out his case demonstrates the real concern that exists in his constituency and throughout Essex about the decision. That is also shown by the cross-party presence in the Chamber and the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and the lion. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink).
  First, I associate myself fully with the emphasis in the speech made by the hon. Member for Colchester on inclusion, the message of "Every Child Matters", the importance of healthy standards in our schools and the use of the school curriculum, including the meals service, as a vehicle to challenge some of the great issues of the day, including obesity. I associate myself with what he said about that and the connection that he made with the "Every Child Matters" Green Paper, forthcoming legislation on children's rights, and the publication of the Wanless report and its connection with the healthy schools standard.
  It is important for the House to be clear about the issue. It is not about responsibility for the provision of meals, which has not actually changed, but rather about how schools can reasonably be expected to discharge their responsibilities to ensure that that provision exists.
  Mr. Ivan Henderson: I recently attended a meeting with the governors and head teacher of All Saints school in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend think that the time scale that was put in place for schools to take on the enormous changes forced on them by Essex county council was reasonable to give them adequate time to prepare, especially given that they had just returned following the Christmas holidays?
  Mr. Twigg: I share the concern that my hon. Friend and both Opposition Members in the Chamber have expressed. I shall come on to the timing of the announcements a little later in my speech.
  It is important to make it clear that the Government are committed to the principle of devolution and delegation of resources and responsibilities to the local
  734
  level, in the belief that decisions on spending are best taken at the most local level, including the level of the school. When the new arrangements described by the hon. Member for Colchester were introduced in 1999, we made it clear that funding and responsibility for the provision of school meals would be automatically delegated to secondary schools. In Essex, that took place immediately in 1999.
  The situation for primary and special schools is more complex. We recognised at the time of the decision in 1999 that not all schools would want to make their own arrangements. Therefore delegation was not made compulsory—primary schools were given the option of taking it. In Essex, the decision was taken to delegate funding, and thus responsibility, to all primary schools. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, the great majority of those schools were brought back into the local education authority meals service, which was provided on behalf of the LEA by two contractors. Frankly, that mirrored the experience of most other authorities, which normally provide a meals service for schools to buy back into, although they are under no obligation to do so.
  Last year, Essex re-tendered its meals service contracts because concerns were expressed about quality. The cost of the new, improved contracts was calculated at around an additional £2.2 million. In the light of that evidence, the LEA decided that it could not afford to delegate sufficient extra funding to enable schools to meet the consequent charges.
  As has already been said, just before Christmas the local education authority took its decision not to enter into new contracts, and instead to end its meals service for primary schools from April this year—one month from now. The hon. Member for Colchester and other hon. Members from Essex will have received a copy of Lord Hanningfield's letter of 28 January setting out the LEA's position.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about the short notice, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree reiterated that, and the hon. Member for Castle Point spoke about a lack of consultation. We are clear that Essex is legally entitled to do what it plans to do, but we do not pretend that that is an ideal situation, particularly with regard to the timing. Schools in Essex have had very short notice of the LEA's decision, and have therefore had to devote a significant amount of time and effort to considering alternatives. Those concerns have been well expressed today.
  We are particularly concerned about the position of some of the smaller schools, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree referred. To be fair to Essex county council, I must point out that it has sought to put in place a fairly comprehensive package of advice and guidance for schools, including meetings and resources via the internet. However, whatever help is given, that does not detract from the fact that, from April, governing bodies will find themselves with a continued legal responsibility for providing free school meals and paid lunches when requested, while the service from which many of them were buying has disappeared at short notice.

  735
  I am pleased that the LEA is doing two concrete things to assist at least some of the schools in Essex. First, it has arranged to extend one of the two existing contracts—that with Initial Catering in south Essex—until the end of the summer term. That at least gives some of the schools more time if they need to make arrangements, and our latest information is that 46 Essex schools are taking advantage of that extension.
  Secondly, the LEA has agreed to provide some additional resources, over the passporting requirements, into the schools budget—about £900,000, to be distributed to schools that are in financial difficulty as a result of the changes. Taking on board my hon. Friend's point, I hope that some of the small rural schools for which the situation will be especially challenging will be able to benefit from that additional resource. I welcome those decisions.
  It may help if I share with the House some other figures supplied to us by the county council: 70 per cent. of primary schools have said what they intend to do from April. Besides the 46 that I have already mentioned, about 115 are making arrangements with a private contractor, 39 have decided to provide meals for themselves, and 53 will, as the hon. Member for Colchester said, provide a cold meal option, at least initially. Although cold meals can meet the nutritional standards that apply to school lunches, the Department for Education and Skills strongly recommends that at least some hot meal options should be available in all schools, so we share the concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed about that situation. I shall return to that subject briefly at the end of my speech.
  Despite the transitional difficulties that will inevitably arise, it is important to remember that the existing service was not universally well thought of. Schools that are embarking on their own provision have an opportunity to build around their own wishes and circumstances in a way that involves the whole school, and I was struck by a notice from a former Essex head teacher posted on the LEA's guidance website pointing out the inspiring effect on his school of making its own meal arrangements. I have also seen that inspirational effect in other schools in other parts of the country, including smaller primary schools.
  736
  None the less, there is a real danger that in the summer term, children at some Essex schools may have either no meals provision or an inadequate one. Responsibility in that respect is clear: the governing body of each school has a responsibility, and that will continue to be the case. However, I accept that that alone is not sufficient.
  The Department certainly has every expectation that Essex county council's procurement service will make every effort to give specific help to those schools that are still in difficulty in fulfilling the requirements that we all have of them. The Government will monitor the situation closely and seek regular progress reports from the local education authority. I would hope—indeed, I am very confident—that the hon. Member for Colchester and other hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Essex constituencies will continue to take an active interest in the subject and bring to the attention of the Government and the House any cases in which all is not going well.
  Schools have been placed in a position of managing a transition in a very short time. That falls short of the ideal in terms of consultation and school involvement. From the information that I have, most schools in Essex will be able to achieve that and some, for the reason I gave, may even benefit from it. However, it would have been better had Essex county council given schools more time to plan for alternatives. I accept that since it took the decision, the LEA has gone to considerable lengths to assist schools to make other arrangements, despite the fact that it is under no legal duty to do so, and it is giving some financial assistance, as I set out.
  Overall, the verdict at this stage must be to wait and see. The DFES will monitor the situation closely, with interest and concern, because we want to ensure that every child in Essex gets access to decent school food. The governors have a responsibility to ensure that that happens, but we want to work with the LEA and, indeed, with colleagues throughout the House to ensure that that aspiration is a reality for all the children of Essex.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Actis/CDC
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he, will make a statement on the management agreement and associated fees between Actis and CDC. [156399]

  Hilary Benn
  The management agreement will be a five year commercial contract between CDC Group plc and Actis. The contract will set out the amounts that CDC shall commit to each of Actis's regional and sectoral funds, the minimum service levels that Actis shall provide (for example in terms of overseas office coverage), the management fees to be charged and all the detailed provisions necessary to this complex transaction.

  Actis's management fees will be determined as a percentage of the capital committed to each of the new funds that it is establishing. The percentages will vary from fund to fund, depending on the management services to be provided and the market norms (where these exist). The total sum of the management fees has been calculated to equate to the anticipated total operating costs of Actis on an approximately breakeven basis over the first five years. The CDC Board has taken independent expert advice on the fee levels appropriate in the circumstances.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the(a) valuation and (b) organisational arrangements of Actis. [156401]

  Hilary Benn
  Actis will be a limited liability partnership between its management and staff, and the Government. Management and staff will have a 60 per cent. controlling interest, providing independence of ownership and investment decision taking. However, under clawback arrangements, over the first 10 years 80 per cent. of any profits and proceeds from a sale of Actis would accrue to the Government.

  The board of CDC Group plc has an obligation to obtain full value for the sale of any part of CDC. The Independent Committee of the CDC board instructed KPMG to value the new company, as well as the interest to be acquired by management and staff.

  Taking into account the clawback arrangements and other obligations to Government, KPMG's opinion was that the market value of the 60 per cent. interest in Actis to be sold to management and staff was some £338,000 to £408,000. The Independent Committee recommended that management and staff should pay £373,000, the midpoint figure, which I have accepted. The Shareholder
  638W
  Executive and our financial advisers have endorsed the valuation process and the NAO has been kept informed about this and other aspects of the CDC reorganisation.

  Actis will have a supervisory board, and the Government will retain the right to veto on the choice of chairman and two non-executive directors. Corporate governance arrangements will be in accordance with best practice for a public limited company. The other details of the organisation of Actis will be set down in the Partnership Agreement.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much is being spent on the refurbishment of the office space of(a) CDC and (b) Actis; and how much is being spent on office space used by the chief executive of each. [157841]

  Hilary Benn
  Expenditure over the last four months on the preparation of new offices for CDC and Actis is estimated at £0.5 million and £4.9 million respectively. CDC, which now has a staff complement of about 20, moved to their new office in February. Actis, who employ some 150 staff in their UK headquarters, will move later this month.

  The offices of the chief executives were part of the overall refurbishment work and were not separately costed.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost of corporate entertaining by CDC was for the last seven years; and what the budget for corporate entertainment by(a) CDC and (b) Actis is for the next three years. [157842]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is not immediately available and will be provided shortly.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the projected new investment in sub–Saharan Africa by CDC and Actis is in the next three years. [157843]

  Hilary Benn
  CDC is required by the Investment Policy to make 50 per cent. of its new investments in sub–Saharan Africa and South Asia. Under the management contract, CDC will be committing $250 million to Actis's Africa Fund 1 to be drawn–down for investment over the period to 2006. A further $100 million will be committed to the fund for 2005. Actis will launch an Africa Fund 2 in 2006 to which it is intended that CDC will commit $320 million alongside $160 million to be raised from third party investors.

  In addition, some of the capital that CDC has committed to the Actis Power Fund and the Small and Medium Sized Enterprise (SME) Funds will also be invested in sub-Saharan Africa.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the(a) salary and (b) bonus and options payments of the 12 highest paid employees of (a) CDC and (b) Actis will be in 2004. [157844]

  Hilary Benn
  Decisions on the 2004 salary and bonus levels for both CDC and Actis will be the responsibility of the Remuneration Committees of their respective boards, working within guidelines agreed with the Government.
  639W
  Bonus payments are dependent on performance, both that of the individual and of the company. It has been agreed that total remuneration for achieving Business Plan targets should move towards the 60th percentile of the nearest equivalent industries.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the(a) length and (b) terms of the contracts of the directors of Actis are. [157845]

  Hilary Benn
  These matter have not yet been finalised, but will follow best practice for corporate governance.

  Extractive Industries
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will support the recommendations of the World Bank commissioned Extractive Industries Review. [156465]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government have been actively involved in the Extractive Industries Review (EIR).

  We support the main conclusion of the review that the World Bank Group should remain involved with the extractive sector. We agree that it is important that social and environmental safeguards are rigorously applied, that human rights are respected, and that efforts are made to improve the governance and transparency of revenue flows from the sector.

  In light of the World Bank's existing and planned work to deal with these issues, we believe that the EIR's recommendation to end investments in the oil sector by 2008 is premature. We also believe that the primary responsibility to address climate change should rest with developed countries, and that it would not be appropriate to deny the potential economic benefits of extractive industries to developing countries.

  Swaziland
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much(a) bilateral and (b) multilateral aid his Department plans to offer Swaziland in 2004–05 and 2005–06, broken down by (i) programme type and (ii) amount. [156517]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID currently funds only two bilateral programmes in Swaziland, both of which are due to end during 2004–05. We expect to spend around £300,000 on a Rural Water Supply Programme, and around £80,000 on a programme of support to the Co-ordinating Assembly of Non–Government organisations.

  In addition, DFID will continue to support Swaziland through a number of regional initiatives. In particular we are supporting work on HIV/AIDS through the International Partnership against AIDS in Africa (implemented by UNAIDS and ActionAid), and through a programme implemented by the Southern African Development Community.

  I am afraid it is not possible to provide future projections of DFID's share of multilateral aid to Swaziland.
  640W

  Northern Ireland Airports
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what facilities are available in Northern Ireland for checking the safety and maintenance records of airlines and aircraft using Northern Ireland's airports; and with what frequency safety inspections have been carried out on airlines and aircraft using airports in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months. [156943]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for the safety oversight of UK registered aircraft and aircraft operators. The oversight for Northern Ireland is carried out by CAA Airworthiness Surveyors located at the Regional Office in Irvine and CAA Flight Operations Inspectors based at Stirling. UK operators serving Northern Ireland but based on the mainland will receive oversight from the other CAA Regional Offices.

  In the last 12 months CAA maintenance surveyors have visited Northern Ireland approximately once a month, each visit lasting several days. Flight Operations Inspectors have visited and conducted inspections on three separate occasions and have also conducted additional inspections on Northern Ireland operations from the mainland.

  A number of foreign airlines also operate services to airports in Northern Ireland. These airlines are subject to oversight and inspection from their national aviation authorities and we require them to be operated in accordance with international standards. If we have reason to suspect that a foreign airline is not meeting international standards we will arrange for it to be inspected by the CAA. Such inspections will take place at the most appropriate airport. It was not necessary to carry out any such inspections in Northern Ireland last year.

  Road Fuels (Supply)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to improve security of supply of road fuels. [157179]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the written statement made on 25 February 2004,Official Report, column 41WS, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In addition, on 6 February we published a voluntary code of practice on the security of dangerous goods by road. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The code implements the security provisions of the United Nations model regulations on the transport of dangerous goods by road until secondary legislation is in place in 2005. Similar provisions for the security of dangerous goods by rail are in preparation to supplement existing rail security measures.

  School Parking
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines his Department issues to local authorities on the use of double yellow lines outside school premises. [156544]
  641W
  Mr. McNulty
  Guidance on the use of double yellow lines and SCHOOL KEEP CLEAR markings outside schools has been published in sections 22.19–22.25 of Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual (Road Markings), ISBN 0–11–552479–7, available from The Stationery Office. I have arranged for a copy of Chapter 5 to be placed in the Library.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investigations were carried out by the Government's representative to ensure compliance with the undertakings made to Parliament during the passage of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 for the planning and construction of the North Downs Tunnel; and if he will place in the Library copies of the relevant reports. [157305]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government's representative (The CTRL Project Representative) carried out audits, including audits of the North Downs Tunnel, during the construction period and in the run up to the opening of Section 1 of the railway.

  There is a multitude of references to the audits within the CTRL Project Representative's records and it would not be practicable to place these within the Library.

  Computer Hazard Perception Test
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the Computer Hazard Perception Test rates over the past three months. [156038]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The pass rate for the moving–image hazard perception testing element of the theory test for learner drivers, riders and those qualifying as Approved Driving Instructors since November 2003 are:

  Percentage

  November 2003

  December 2003

  January 2004

  February 2004 to date

  Car

  64.5

  69.3

  78.9

  79.9

  Motorcycle

  79.8

  81.6

  89.9

  89.0

  Lorry

  65.8

  69.5

  79.3

  79.3

  Bus

  70.5

  70

  80.2

  80.5

  Driving Instructor

  49.4

  55.8

  65.2

  63.8

  In December, the tutorial video that candidates are shown at the start of the hazard perception part of the theory test was revised following comments from candidates that they did not fully understand what they were expected do in that part of the test. A copy of tutorial in CD-ROM format was sent to all driving instructors. Since then, the pass rates for the hazard perception part of the test have increased significantly.

  Driving Theory Tests
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many driving theory tests have been booked online in each year since the service became available. [158040]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since 19 December 2001, when the facility to book theory tests online via the Driving Standards Agency's website became available, the following numbers of tests have been booked.642W

  Number of bookings

  December 2001

  157

  2002

  139,315

  2003

  364,085

  2004 to date

  51,421

  Energy Saving Trust
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there will be an increase in the funds allocated to the Energy Saving Trust for the next financial year. [156199]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The funds allocated to the Energy Saving Trust for the Transport Energy programmes in England and Wales will be maintained at their 2003–04 levels in the next financial year.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the extra money the Energy Saving Trust would require to provide Powershift grants to all qualifying applications received since the scheme was set up. [156200]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Prior to 2003–4, the Powershift grant programme had been under–subscribed. In November 2003, the Trust estimated that it would overspend the Transport Energy budget for England and Wales by at least £8 million if it continued accepting new applications to the end of the financial year.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are to extend the Energy Saving Trust's(a) Powershift and (b) CleanUp schemes in the next financial year. [156201]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Transport Energy programmes administered by the Energy Saving Trust, which include the Powershift and CleanUp schemes, will continue to receive financial support for 2004–05 at the same level as provided in 2003–04. However, in response to the increase in demand for Powershift and CleanUp experienced this year, individual grants levels provided by these two schemes (in England and Wales) are being reviewed by the Energy Saving Trust following discussions with stakeholders. The Trust will announce levels and arrangements for the 2004–05 programme shortly.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the Energy Saving Trust's Powershift scheme in increasing the number of vehicles using liquid petroleum gas. [156245]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of LPG vehicles converted or purchased with the aid of Powershift grants since 2000–01 is as follows:

  Number of Powershift LPG vehicles1

  2000–01

  3,971

  2001–02

  4,259

  2002–03

  2,086

  2003–04 (Forecast)

  3,200

  643W
  This can be compared to the growth in the total number of UK LPG vehicles since 2000.

  Total Number of UK LPG Vehicles2

  2000

  39,000

  2001

  65,000

  2002

  89,000

  2003

  107,000

  1Figures from the Energy Saving Trust

  2Figures from the Liquid Petroleum Gas Association

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) cars, (b) vans and (c) trucks have gained grants from the Powershift scheme. [157267]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following numbers of cars, vans and trucks have gained grants from the Powershift scheme since 1997–08 (figures from the Energy Saving Trust).

  Year

  Passenger cars

  1Vans

  2Trucks

  1997–98

  92

  198

  25

  1998–99

  285

  373

  39

  1999–2000

  685

  695

  26

  2000–01

  1,714

  2,347

  67

  2001–02

  2,260

  2,382

  31

  2002–03

  720

  1,379

  11

  2003–043

  1,638

  1,410

  66

  Total

  7,394

  8,784

  265

  1Includes car derived vans

  2Includes light trucks, refuse trucks and large commercial vehicles

  3To date

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many taxis have claimed a Powershift grant. [157268]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No taxis have claimed a Powershift grant since 2000. Obtaining information for earlier years would incur disproportionate cost as it would require a manual trawl of the Energy Saving Trust's paper records. In addition, information on the number of passenger cars that received Powershift grants and were subsequently operated as taxis is not held on the Trust's record.

  London, Tilbury and Southend Rail Line
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many rail passengers originating from Canvey Island on average each day use the London, Tilbury and Southend rail line; [157171]

  (2) how many passengers on average each day used (a) Benfleet Station and (b) Shoeburyness Station on the London, Tilbury and Southend Line in the last year for which figures are available. [157172]

  Mr. McNulty
  According to the London Area Travel Survey conducted by the Strategic Rail Authority, on a typical weekday in 2001, 4428 passengers boarded trains at Benfleet between 0600 and 1900. Of these, 1895 gave their origin address as Canvey Island. 476 passengers boarded trains at Shoeburyness. Another London area survey is planned for 2006.
  644W

  Lorry Drivers (Rest Areas)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made with the pilot study aimed at providing dedicated rest areas for lorry drivers away from the motorway network. [157009]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked officials to work up a pilot scheme to provide a dedicated rest area for lorry drivers away from the motorway network. This is in response to concerns raised by the haulage industry, and others, about the lack of such facilities. These proposals are still at an early stage, although it is envisaged that any such scheme should be a joint initiative involving the Highways Agency, die haulage industry, and the ultimate operator of the facility. Much of the work to date has concentrated on identifying a suitable site and undertaking discussions with relevant local planning authorities, the haulage industry and potential operators.

  M6
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will allow cars which are free of road fund licences to travel free on the M6 toll road; and if he will make a statement. [157316]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The legislation (the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991) enabling tolling at the M6 toll road provides exemptions from toll charges for police vehicles, identifiable as such by writing or markings on them or otherwise by their appearance, if being used for police purposes.

  The same legislation also provides exemption from liability to pay toll charges for certain types of vehicle, which are exempt from vehicle excise duty. These are:

  fire engines as defined by paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2 of the Vehicle Excise and Regulation Act 1994;

  ambulances as defined by paragraph 6(2) of that schedule;

  invalid carriages as defined by paragraph 18 of that schedule;

  vehicles used by or kept for use by or for the purposes of a disabled person as defined by paragraph 19 of that schedule; and

  vehicles used for the carriage of disabled persons by recognised bodies in accordance with paragraph 20 of that schedule.

  The provision of any further exemptions from toll charges for other vehicles using the M6 toll road is solely at the discretion of the M6 toll concessionaire, Midland Expressway Ltd.

  Motor Vehicle Licensing Applications
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what sum was; paid to the Post Office in each of the last five years for dealing with motor vehicle licensing applications. [157159]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Post Office Ltd. provides facilities for motor vehicle relicensing at over 4,500 post office branches. The costs are as follows.
  645W

  £ million

  1999

  41

  2000

  39.2

  2001

  37.5

  2002

  40.5

  2003

  41.7

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations control the number of post offices permitted to deal with motor vehicle licensing applications. [157160]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A number of factors have to be taken into consideration. The main one being striking a balance between cost to the taxpayer and convenience to the motorist. The current network of offices means that 95 per cent. of customers have access to a MVL issuing post office branch within two miles of their home.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) post offices and (b) sub–post offices were authorised to deal with motor vehicle licensing applications in 1997; and how many are now authorised to deal with motor vehicle licensing applications. [157161]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There were 4,000 Motor Vehicle Licensing [MVL]offices in 1997. Of these around 600 were Branch (Crown) Offices and 3,400 other post offices.

  At present there are 4,548 MVL issuing offices. These comprise 552 Branch (Crown) offices and 3,996 others.

  By the end of March 2004 a further 44 offices will provide the service, bringing the number of MVL offices to 4,592.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the post offices in Chorley which deal with motor vehicle licences [157719]

  Mr. Jamieson
  At present there are seven motor vehicle licensing post office(r) branches in the Chorley constituency. They are:

  Address

  Whittle Le Woods

  23 Shaw Brow, Chorley, PR6 7LE

  Chorley

  Cleveland Street. Chorley, PR7 1AW

  Adlington

  18/20 Market Place Chorley, PR7 4EZ

  Eccleston

  Unit 14a Carrington Centre, Chorley, PR75UP

  Coppull

  165 Spendmore Lane. Coppull, Chorley, PR7 5BY

  Brinscall

  50/54 School Lane, Brinscall, Chorley, PR6 8QP

  Hoghton

  The Straits, Hoghton Preston, PR5 0DA

  Motor Insurance
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department is taking to tackle the problem of uninsured driving. [157532]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Last August, we commissioned an independent review of motor insurance with uninsured driving as a key consideration. The reviewer, Professor David Greenaway of Nottingham university, will report in April. We shall study his findings closely, with a view to taking effective action to tackle the problem. We expect to consider a range of measures, some of which may involve legislative change.
  646W

  Motorway Service Stations
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the value is of the Government stake in the ownership of motorway service stations; and if he will make a statement. [156695]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have retained a freehold interest in 21 of the 64 existing Motorway Service Areas (MSAs) in England; these have a total current book value of £28,626,000. There are currently no plans to dispose of these remaining freehold interests, with the possible exception of Burtonwood M SA on the M62.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department since 1st January 2003, broken down by(a) ordinary written and (b) named day; what percentage in respect of (a) were answered within 10 working days and what percentage in respect of (b) were answered by the specified date. [157737]

  Mr. McNulty
  At 27 February 2004, the Department for Transport had answered 3,541 written parliamentary questions tabled since 1 January 2003. This comprised 3,002 ordinary written questions (98.5 per cent. of which were answered within 10 sitting days) and 539 named day questions (76 per cent. of which were given a substantive answer on the specified date).

  Practical Driving Tests
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) target lead time and (b) average waiting time for practical driving tests are; what the waiting time for a practical driving test at the Jupiter Road Test Centre in Norwich is; and if he will make a statement. [156967]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Driving Standards Agency has a national target for the average annual waiting time for a practical car driving test of six weeks. The current national average waiting time for a test is 10 weeks. The current waiting time for a test at the Jupiter Road test centre in Norwich is 18 weeks.

  Demand for driving tests rose sharply in 2002–03, with demand for car tests 20 per cent. higher than forecast. In response, 235 driving examiners were recruited and a further 85 examiners will be recruited by the end of the financial year. The recruitment of another 140 examiners is planned for next financial year. By November 2003, the national average waiting time for a car test was down to 8.7 weeks. However, waiting times rose in December, mainly as a result of the holiday period. In January, bad weather resulted in some tests being cancelled nationally, with certain parts of the country more badly affected than others. Some 120 tests were cancelled at the Jupiter Road centre. Bad weather has resulted in some 30 tests being cancelled in February. Industrial action by driving examiners on 17 February resulted in around 30 tests being cancelled.

  647W
  A continued work to rule is likely to result in more tests being cancelled, further adversely affecting waiting times.

  Rail/Aviation Safety
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the provisions of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 relating to(a) the Rail Accident Investigation Board and (b) the testing of alcohol levels in pilots will take effect. [156887]

  Mr. McNulty
  A consultation on the secondary legislation required for the Rail Accident Investigation Branch is planned before the Summer with the expectation that the provisions will come into force by the end of the year.

  It is anticipated that the aviation alcohol testing provisions of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 will be brought into force before Easter.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake a review of the(a) law on and (b) penalties for (i) failing to stop and (ii) failing to summon assistance after a road crash. [154916]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 12 February 2004]: I have been asked to reply.

  Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 imposes a duty on drivers to stop and report accidents in which personal injury or damage to other vehicles is caused. Failing to summon assistance is not an offence. Failure to comply with any of the requirements of section 170 is a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment or a fine not exceeding £5,000, or both.

  We are currently reviewing road traffic offences involving bad driving and intend to issue a consultation paper on this shortly. Failing to stop and report an accident falls outside the scope of the review (although if the accident were itself caused by bad driving this would be covered). Nevertheless we will of course look carefully at any representations made during the consultation.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road traffic accidents involving car drivers overtaking lorries on single carriageway roads occurred in each year since 2000. [157001]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on road accidents which only involve damage to property are not available. The table below shows the number of road accidents involving personal injury on single carriageway roads in which at least one heavy goods vehicle and at least one car overtaking a moving vehicle were involved.

  Number of Accidents

  Number

  2000

  317

  2001

  348

  2002

  300

  648W

  Speed Limit
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the case for introducing minimum speed limits. [157341]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no plans to introduce minimum speed limits on our roads. Minimum speed limits are difficult to enforce as there may be instances where traffic congestion or road works reduce traffic flow to a standstill. This would have the effect of criminalising drivers for circumstances beyond their control.

  Train Overcrowding
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the levels of train overcrowding on(a) the Liverpool to London route, Transpennine routes and (c) the Liverpool to Manchester route; and if he will make a statement. [156797]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: None. All train operating companies are required by their franchise agreements to ensure that adequate capacity is provided to address excessive crowding. This applies to all services, although in commuter routes to London a specific capacity requirement has been made. The SRA has also announced its intention to review its policy on dealing with crowding. It plans to publish a consultation document later this year.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many seats for(a) standard class and (b) first class passengers (i) are available in Pendolino trains running between London and Liverpool and (ii) were available in the trains which operated previously. [156798]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: Seat numbers on trains running between London and Liverpool vary from service to service. Currently Virgin generally operate eight car Pendolino trains providing 217 Standard Class and 140 First Class seats. Later this year Virgin propose to operate nine-car Pendolino trains with between 263 and 293 Standard Class, depending on the nature of the ninth carriage, and 140 First Class seats. The other trains which operate on this route are: Mark 3 stock operating with nine carriages providing 392 Standard Class and 132 First Class seats; Mark 2 stock operating with nine carriages providing 332 Standard Class and 120 First Class seats: and West Coast High Speed Trains operating with eight carriages providing 249 Standard Class and 105 First Class seats.

  Train Services (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains stop at stations in the Chorley constituency; and if he will make a statement. [157265]

  Mr. McNulty
  On weekdays, 94 trains call at Chorley, 42 trains call at Adlington, 26 trains call at Croston and 31 trains call at Euxton Balshaw Lane.
  649W

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Ministerial Speeches
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Leader of the House how many speeches he made between 9 June 2003 and 1 February 2004; and where a copy of each speech can be obtained. [156107]

  Date

  Friday 20 June 2003

  Bevan Foundation Annual Lecture*

  Tuesday 29 July 2003

  IPPR Breakfast Discussion: Always the Silly Season? Is the relationship between the media and politics bad for civil society? *

  Tuesday 16 September 2003

  Parliamentary Press Gallery Lunch Club*

  Monday 6 October 2003

  Club of Three trilateral Ameurus Conference Dinner

  Thursday 9 October 2003

  Jean Monet Lecture. "The Progressive Case for Europe"

  Thursday 16 October 2003

  Institute for Citizenship 'Get the Vote Out! 2004' Launch event

  Monday 17 November 2003

  CBiI Conference. 'The Future of Europe'

  Tuesday 2 December 2003

  House Magazine's conference on The Coming Year in Parliament. "The Government's Priorities"*

  British Coal Staff Pensions
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases of British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme members who were mis-sold private pensions have been dealt with by(a) reinstatement to the BCSSS and (b) compensation. [154919]

  Mr. Timms
  This is an issue for the Trustees of the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme (BCSSS).

  Employment Law Exemptions
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what exemptions are in place in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland from equal and fair employment laws; and whether these exemptions are from (i) United Kingdom, (ii) European and (iii) international law. [156670]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 26 February 2004]: Employment rights legislation is extensive and contains detailed definitions of those to whom it does and does not apply. To give only two examples, the unfair dismissal legislation generally applies to employees who have completed one year's qualifying service with their employer, but this qualifying period is waived if a dismissal is for one of a number of specified reasons; while the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 contain provisions (similar to those in other anti-discrimination legislation) which permit differences of treatment on grounds of sexual orientation or religion or belief respectively in certain limited circumstances NA here a particular sexual orientation or religion or belief is a genuine occupational requirement for the particular post, as allowed by the Employment Directive 2000/78/EC
  650W
  Mr. Hain
  I have given 12 speeches in my official capacity as Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal. Those given from a text are marked with an * and are available on my website www. CommonsLeader.gov.uk

  which they transpose. If the hon Member would like to provide more specific information about his concerns, I shall be happy to try to address them.

  Employment Rights Leaflets
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans her Department has to reprint its advisory leaflets on employment rights. [156288]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today PQ No. 156289. Following a recent review the Department will move towards producing employment rights information mainly in internet format. We will continue to provide hard copy prints of national minimum wage guidance and a booklet summarising individual employment rights (PL716) as required.

  We are mindful that not everyone has access to the internet. We have put in place arrangements to print copies on request for people who are either unable to use or do not have access to the internet.

  We are working in partnership with Acas to provide advice on employment issues. Acas produce a series of booklets, which will be reprinted according to demand and any necessary textual revisions. These booklets are available in hard copy.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the use by advice agencies of its leaflets on employment rights. [156289]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Last year the Department consulted leading customers to find out how our information on employment rights could be better focussed on users' needs. As part of this review, an assessment was made on the impact of withdrawing employment rights booklets, using information provided by the Department's
  651W
  distribution service. Although advice agencies appeared they were not among the most regular users of the service.

  End users generally told us that they did not need the detailed explanations of the law given in DTI's existing publications. Users want practical advice and guidance on what they should actually do in respect of employment issues. Acas, who provide advice and guidance to employers and employees, are usually better placed to provide user focussed advice based on factual information supplied by the Department. Acas recently produced a series of booklets summarising individual rights. These can be obtained free of charge from the Acas distribution centre on 08702 429090. I understand that feedback on the publications has been generally very positive.

  Globalisation
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she(a) has taken and (b) is taking to assess the impact of globalisation on UK (i) manufacturing and (ii) services. [155973]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Globalisation affects our manufacturing and service industries in many ways. It offers great opportunities and benefits as well as tough challenges. Globalisation must not be something to which we respond passively: instead we must actively shape it to meet people's needs, in Britain and abroad.

  The impact of globalisation and our appropriate policy response will be a key theme of the White Paper on Trade and Investment, which will be published in the summer.

  Large Combustion Plants Directive
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new analysis her Department has conducted as to the impact of the proposed national emission reduction plan for implementation of the large combustion plants directive on indigenous coal production industry. [155898]

  Mr. Timms
  We are continuing to assess the potential economic impact of the introduction of the directive on the UK coal industry, and on the coal-fired electricity generating industry which is its major market, using both internal analyses and independent research. The aim of this analysis will be to understand the probable available market for indigenous coal under both implementation options and to form an understanding of the likelihood that UK coal producers will be able to fully exploit this available market.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions her Department has had with the indigenous coal production industry on the implementation of the large combustion plants directive. [155899]

  Mr. Timms
  Officials from both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are in continuing dialogue with the UK coal industry regarding the implementation of the large combustion plants directive. In addition, my noble Friend Lord Whitty, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural 652W
  Affairs and I met representatives from the UK coal industry and the electricity generating industry, which is its major market, on 9 February to discuss their key concerns.

  Lung Disease (Compensation Claims)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to deal with claims for compensation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease received after the deadline. [156516]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Claims for compensation for respiratory disease received after the scheme deadline of 31 March 2004 will be dealt with under common law.

  So far 4,506 claims have been made in my right hon. Friend's area. I encourage anyone else who may be eligible to claim before 31 March.

  Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was of the advertisement for a policy adviser (non-executive chairman designate) for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. [156973]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: The cost of the advertising in The Sunday Times, Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman for a policy adviser to the Department, who subject to the successful passage of the Energy Bill will be appointed as Chair of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority on Royal Assent, was £20,400. The appointment details were also placed on the Cabinet Office's Public Appointments website.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what fee is being paid to Whitehead Mann in connection with the recruitment of a policy adviser (non-executive chairman designate) for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority; when this fee will be paid; and if she will make a statement. [156974]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: The Department asked the recruitment consultants Whitehead Mann, following a competitive tender, to undertake a recruitment campaign for the post of policy adviser to the Department. He/she will advise on the preparations for the establishment of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Subject to the successful passage of the Energy Bill, it is anticipated that the policy adviser will then become the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Chair. The company's fee for undertaking the recruitment campaign is scheduled to be paid in accordance with Cabinet Office's framework agreement with the company and fees will be charged in 0, 30, and 60 days. The charge to my Department to date has been £17,635 including VAT.

  Overseas Trade Exhibitions
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regular overseas trade exhibitions which in 2003 were supported by funds originating from her Department are receiving reduced or no funding support originating from her Department or British Trade International in 2004. [157121]
  653W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is not possible to say which regular overseas trade exhibitions supported in the 2003–04 financial year will not be supported in 2004–05. The final programme of supported exhibitions is not fully fixed a year in advance, and there is flexibility for events to be added to replace those that are cancelled (e.g. through lack of interest, or other factors such as terrorism, SARS etc.).

  It is not possible to say which overseas exhibitions supported in 2003–04 will receive reduced funding in 2004–05. The exact funding level for an exhibition is not fixed in advance. It will normally depend upon the number of businesses wishing to join the UK Trade and Investment supported group, the actual Pound Sterling cost of stand space and construction, and the demands of other events in the same industry sector. Furthermore, the actual cost of many 2003–04 exhibitions is still unknown, as claims can be submitted up to four months after the date of an exhibition.

  Port Clarence
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much One NorthEast plans to invest in the development of Port Clarence in Stockton. [156612]

  Jacqui Smith
  One NorthEast has been working with English Partnerships and others on a proposal for a potential development at Port Clarence on the River Tees. The project is at an early stage of development, with costs and feasibility yet to be determined.

  Recruitment Advertising
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's expenditure on recruitment advertising was in each of the last three years, broken down by publication; and what proportion of such expenditure was(a) to advertise vacant posts and (b) in the form of other general recruitment advertising. [155522]

  Ms Hewitt
  When running recruitment campaigns, recruitment costs, including advertising costs are generally devolved to individual management units and there are no central records held of the breakdown of advertising costs. When advertising vacancies, my Department uses the most appropriate advertising media, be it national, regional, local, trade magazine or website, depending on the nature of the vacancy to be filled.

  Security Breaches
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government are

  VAT registrations

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  United Kingdom

  187,690

  187,515

  181,370

  184,035

  174,620

  175,800

  North East

  4,195

  4,215

  4,255

  4,375

  4,110

  4,200

  North West

  18,460

  18,720

  17,830

  18,285

  17,445

  17,595

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  12,165

  12,110

  11,980

  12,180

  11,675

  12,140

  East Midlands

  12,035

  11,925

  11,480

  12,010

  11,425

  12,075

  West Midlands

  14,745

  14,905

  14,530

  14,675

  14,055

  14,265

  East

  18,950

  18,215

  17,385

  18,465

  17,330

  17,655

  London

  37,280

  39,305

  37,655

  37,760

  34,385

  33,490

  South East

  30,740

  30,120

  29,115

  29,285

  28,520

  28,480

  654W
  taking to address the problems arising from information security breaches. [157245]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department works with business to produce a biennial survey of information security breaches. The 2004 Information Security Breaches Survey will be launched on 27 April at the Infosecurity Europe exhibition. These surveys help to raise awareness of the need for good information security practice and help to inform our own activities. Recent surveys have identified a need for easy to understand security advice for small and medium–sized companies. In response to this need, our most recent initiative was the launch last year of an online source of information on e-security. This resource draws together a range of tools, advice and guidance on core areas of information security and is aimed particularly at smaller businesses. New content is currently being added to this site which can be found at www.ukonlineforbusiness.gov.uk/informationsecurity. This will assist businesses in preventing and recovering from information security breaches.

  Singapore Issues
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the inclusion of the Singapore issues in trade negotiations. [156328]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government believe that there are arguments that it is important for developed and developing countries alike to reduce bureaucracy on cross border trade (trade facilitation), to encourage a climate which facilitates foreign direct investment, to promote economic growth through fair competition and to encourage transparency in the procurement of public goods and services to help reduce corruption and increase good governance. However, we have made clear to our European Community partners that the UK prefers not to insist on including negotiations on investment and competition within the WTO Doha Development Agenda if doing so would jeopardise the DDA as a whole, given the benefits we believe a successful trade round could bring particularly to developing countries.

  VAT Registration
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses have(a) registered and (b) de-registered for VAT since 1997 in each of the government regions. [156711]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 February 2004]: The number of VAT registrations and de-registrations for each Government Office Region and for each calendar year is as follows:
  655W

  VAT registrations

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  South West

  16,185

  16,005

  15,705

  15,725

  14,580

  14,960

  England

  164,755

  165,515

  159.930

  162,765

  153,520

  154,865

  Wales

  6,415

  6,220

  6,150

  6,310

  5,985

  6,110

  Scotland

  12,515

  12,010

  11,620

  11,490

  11,505

  11,365

  Northern Ireland

  4,010

  3,770

  3,670

  3,470

  3,610

  3,460

  Source:

  Business Start-ups and Closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1994–2002, Small Business Service

  VAT de-registrations

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  United Kingdom

  151,900

  153,450

  160,410

  165,475

  167,185

  176,040

  North East

  3,970

  3,955

  3,995

  3,935

  4,405

  4,120

  North West

  16,230

  16,270

  16,290

  16,735

  16,550

  17,750

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  11,130

  10,975

  11,430

  1 ,550

  12,025

  12,340

  East Midlands

  10,125

  10,170

  10,460

  10,720

  10.825

  11,115

  West Midlands

  12,610

  12,705

  13,180

  13,040

  13,445

  14,180

  East

  14,520

  14,520

  14,985

  15,895

  16,905

  17,190

  London

  26,735

  28,950

  30,430

  32,560

  32,565

  35,605

  South East

  22,955

  22,140

  23,900

  25,135

  25,455

  27,355

  South West

  13,285

  13,375

  14,080

  14,665

  14,190

  15,290

  England

  131,560

  133,060

  138,750

  144,235

  146,370

  154,940

  Wales

  6,190

  6,265

  6,585

  6,265

  5,950

  6,785

  Scotland

  10,925

  10,915

  11,410

  11,255

  11,325

  11,140

  Northern Ireland

  3,220

  3,210

  3,665

  3,725

  3,535

  3,170

  Source:

  Business Start-ups and Closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1994–2002, Small Business Service

  Working Hours
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what work the Government has undertaken(a) with the Confederation of British Industry and (b) in the EU to ensure that workers in the UK have flexible working hours; and if she will make a statement. [156177]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Work and Parents Taskforce, established by the Government in 2001, was responsible for the design of the flexible working law aimed at encouraging the take-up of flexible working patterns in the workplace. John Cridland, Deputy Director-General of the CBI, was a member of the 10 person taskforce.

  To maintain flexible labour markets we are currently considering our response to the European Commission's Communication on working time so as to ensure that key decision makers in the EU understand the benefits of our approach, which provides protection to workers who do not wish to work long hours without restricting those who wish make a different choice.

  The Government's Work-Life balance campaign also encourages employers to adopt best practice and provide flexible working practices right across the workforce.

  Carbon Sinks
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to allow the carbon sink capacities of agricultural crops to be incorporated into emissions trading schemes. [155665]
  656W
  Mr. Morley
  The Department recognises the important benefits of agricultural crops acting as carbon sinks and removing a significant greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. The inclusion of sinks in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme via Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism projects (Kyoto Protocol mechanisms) is currently under discussion at EU level where the UK supports their inclusion.

  The UK Emissions Trading Scheme includes direct emissions of greenhouse gases from installations and indirect emissions associates with electricity use. There is no provision for carbon sinks projects in the Scheme. The Scheme will be reviewed once final agreement has been reached on the inclusion of credits from Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism in the EU Scheme.

  Clop Spraying
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to ban crop spraying within a set distance of residential properties. [156359]

  (2) if she will make prior notification to nearby domestic properties of the intention to crop spray a requirement; [156360]

  (3)when she will announce her intentions in respect of the consultation exercise on crop-spraying. [156361]

  Alun Michael
  There has been a very large response to the formal consultation on no-spray buffer zones near residential properties and the responses are currently being evaluated. Once the evaluation has been completed Ministers will decide whether such zones should be required.
  657W

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment has been made of the Bauer-IBS demountable flood defences used in Shrewsbury in the latest floods; [154889]

  (2) what the cost was of temporary flood defences in Shrewsbury in the recent floods; [154895]

  (3) whether Shrewsbury is eligible to apply for funding under the Bellwin Scheme for costs associated with the recent floods; [154896]

  (4) what signage was provided around flooded areas in Shrewsbury to warn people of the dangers of contaminated water during the recent floods; [154897]

  (5) what assessment was made of the flood defences in Frankwell in Shrewsbury during the recent floods; [154898]

  (6) what long-term plans she has to provide permanent flood defences in place of the temporary flood defences used in Shrewsbury in the recent floods; [154899]

  (7) what plans she has to provide flood defence protection to properties in (a) Underdale Road, (b) Abbey Foregate and Longden Coleham, (c) Coton Manor, (d) Smithfield Road, (e) Coton Hill and (f) the left bank of English Bridge in Shrewsbury. [154900]

  Mr. Morley
  The demountable flood defences form an integral part of the Shrewsbury Flood Alleviation Scheme. The February 2004 floods were the first time such barriers had been used in the UK and were a great success, holding back 1.9 metres of water at the peak. Seventy properties in Frankwell are now protected for the first time in their history. The performance of the barriers was assessed and recorded and operational matters are currently being reviewed by the Environment Agency and Bauer—IBS.

  The Environment Agency and Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council jointly purchased 1400m of Danish Mobile Dam at a cost of £72,000 two years ago. A 90 metre length was used in Shrewsbury during the recent floods (pro rata cost of circa £5,000) and together with associated pumps helped protect approximately 40 properties and kept the main road into Shrewsbury open.

  A comprehensive monitoring and survey programme of all the defences was carried out during the floods. Debrief meetings with professional partners are now scheduled to assess the overall response. However it is clear the defences and associated drainage pumping stations worked very successfully and Frankwell remained dry.

  The Environment Agency has undertaken a thorough assessment of the remaining flood risk areas of Shrewsbury. Further permanent defences are difficult to justify but the Environment Agency will continue to keep the possibilities for further protection under review.

  The Benwin scheme is only operated in circumstances that are exceptional by local standards and unforeseeable. ODPM have not received any application from the relevant Councils.
  658W
  General advice about health hazards of flood waters was disseminated via local radio, leaflet circulation and on site manning. No specific signs were deployed.

  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the savings to households resulting from flood defences funded by her Department, for each year since 1997, broken down by constituency. [155090]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra grant aids capital projects and related studies that meet specified economic, technical and environmental criteria and achieve the threshold priority score for the year in which they start. Decisions regarding which flood and coastal defence projects to promote, their timing and appropriate solutions are matters for the operating authorities the Environment Agency (EA), local authorities and (in areas with special drainage needs) internal drainage boards.

  No central record is kept of estimated savings from flood defences during actual flood events but appraisal of proposed defences includes assessment of estimated costs and benefits to the national economy. The Department estimates that total benefits of approximately £17 billion (in terms of flood damages avoided) were attributable to urban areas (at the time of project approval) for projects approved since 1997 over the lifetime of the defences.

  While savings to households will contribute significantly to the overall benefit, centrally held records do not identify them separately from other benefit items nor by constituency or year. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to answer the specific question without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Greyhounds
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many prosecutions there have been under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 with regard to greyhounds in each of the last 10 years. [153528]

  Caroline Flint
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to identify those prosecutions under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 that relate to greyhounds because details of the circumstances of the offences are not collected centrally.

  Horses
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many horses there were in the UK in each year since 2000. [156563]

  Alun Michael
  This information has not been collected centrally in the past but I have been working closely with the industry to achieve a national equine database which will then be able to provide such information. This opportunity arises from the implementation of the Horse Passport legislation. Currently the best estimate is provided by the British Equestrian Trade Association's National Equestrian Survey published in 1999, which estimated that there were some 900,000 privately owned horses or ponies in Great Britain.
  659W

  Large Combustion Plants Directive
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what new analysis her Department has conducted on the impact of the proposed national emission reduction plan for implementation of the large combustion plants directive on the indigenous coal production industry; and if she will make a statement. [155895]

  Alun Michael
  With the Department of Trade and Industry, we are continuing to assess the potential economic impact of the introduction of the Directive on the UK coal industry, and on the coal-fired electricity generating industry which is its major market, using both internal analyses and independent research. The aim of this analysis will be to understand the probable available market for indigenous coal under both implementation options and to form an understanding of the likelihood that UK coal producers will be able to fully exploit this available market.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions her Department has had with the indigenous coal production industry on the implementation of the large combustion plants directive. [155896]

  Alun Michael
  Officials from both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry are in continuing dialogue with the UK coal industry regarding the implementation of the Large Combustion Plants Directive. In addition, my noble Friend Lord Whitty, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Trade and Industry (Mr. Timms) met representatives from the UK coal industry and the electricity generating industry, which is its major market, on 9 February to discuss their key concerns.

  Market Towns Initiative
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many applications for funding under the Market Towns Initiative her Department has received; and what proportion has been successful; [155946]

  (2) which towns have been awarded grant funding under the Market Towns Initiative; and how much has been spent through the scheme, broken down by (a) town and (b) region in each year for which records are available. [155950]

  Alun Michael
  The £37 million funding identified in the Rural White Paper was to enable the Regional Development Agencies and the Countryside Agency to support market town regeneration in the regions. The initiative was therefore not established as a national funding programme, but as a means of enabling regional partnerships to target towns in their region according to regionally agreed selection criteria.

  When the announcement of the funding was made, it was envisaged that 100 towns would benefit from this funding. I am pleased to report that, through the innovative methods used in each of the regions, currently 227 towns are receiving support.
  660W
  As the Initiative is being delivered through regional partnerships in different ways and we need to collate the data, I will be writing to the hon. Member with more detailed information in due course. In the meantime, set out as follows is a list of the market towns in each of the regions.

  Market towns chosen in the Regions

  North East

  Northumberland

  Alnwick

  Berwick-upon Tweed

  Haltwhistle

  Hexham

  Morpeth

  Seahouses

  Wooler

  Rothbury

  Amble

  Prudhoe

  Co. Durham

  Barnard Castle

  Crook

  Middleton-in-Teesdale

  Stanhope

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Guisborough (pilot)

  North West

  Cumbria

  Cockermouth

  Egremont

  Keswick

  Longtown

  Millom

  Penrith

  Ulverston

  Wigton with Silloth and Aspitria (pilot)

  Windermere, Ambleside and Bowness

  Lancashire

  Barnoldswick

  Carnforth

  Clitheroe

  Garstang

  Padiham

  Cheshire

  Sandbach (pilot)

  Neston

  Frodsham

  Yorkshire and Humber

  North Yorkshire

  Malton/Norton (pilot)

  Pateley Bridge

  High Bentham (pilot)

  Pateley Bridge

  Thirsk

  Whitby

  Richmond

  Calderdale

  Todmorton (pilot)

  661W

  Doncaster

  Thorne (pilot)

  North Lines

  Brigg (pilot)

  East Riding

  Hornsea (pilot)

  Market Weighton

  Leeds

  Otley

  Barnsley

  Penistone

  Wakefield

  Hemsworth

  North East Lines

  Immingham

  West Midlands

  Shropshire

  Craven Arms

  Oswestry

  Wem

  Bridgnorth, Highley and Alveley

  Market Drayton

  Whitchurch

  Herefordshire

  Kington

  Ledbury

  Bromyard

  Staffordshire

  Leek and Cheadle

  Uttoxeter

  Warwickshire

  Alcester

  Atherstone and Polesworth

  Worcestershire

  Pershore

  Evesham

  Bewdley

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  Belper

  Bolsover

  Chapel-en-le-Frith

  Clowne

  Glossop

  Heanor

  Killamarsh

  S Normanton

  New Mills

  Lincolnshire

  Louth

  Spalding

  Market Rasen

  Mablethorpe

  Alford

  Spilsby

  Wainfleet

  Horncastle

  662W

  Leicestershire

  Market Harborough

  Melton Mowbray

  Thurmaston

  Broughton Astley

  Earl Shilton

  Bottesford

  Ibstock

  Lutterworth

  Market Deepening

  Northants

  Rothwell

  Thrapston

  Desborough (pilot)

  Brackley Towcester

  Heathfield (funded by RDA) Rutland

  Oakham

  Nottinghamshire

  Ollerton

  Retford

  Harworth Bircotes

  Bingham

  Eastwood

  East of England

  Cambridgeshire

  Wisbech

  March

  Chatteris Ely

  Littleport

  Whittlesey

  Essex

  Walton on the Naze

  Manningtree

  Brightlingsea

  Burnham on Crouch

  Saffron Walden

  Norfolk

  Dereham

  Walton

  Downham Market

  Diss

  Aylsham

  Harleston

  Wymondham

  Suffolk

  Beccles

  Brandon

  Wickham Market

  Debenham

  Woodbridge

  Newmarket

  Mildenhall

  Haverhill

  663W

  Hertfordshire

  Tring

  Berhamsted

  South East

  Kent

  Aylesham

  Minster

  New Romney

  Cranbrook (funded by RDA)

  Hythe (funded by RDA)

  Sheerness

  Lenham (funded by RDA)

  Edenbridge

  Oxfordshire

  Faringdon

  Carterton

  Thame

  Hampshire (co-ordinator to work with 11 towns within the county)

  Yatley

  Odiham

  New Milton

  Botley

  Hythe

  Alton

  Petersfield

  Whitchurch

  Whitehill

  Wickham

  Bishop's Waltham

  Fordingbridge

  Dibden

  East Sussex

  Battle (funded by RDA)

  Hailsham (funded by RDA)

  Rye (funded by RDA)

  Isle of Wight (island wide partnership and Co-ordinator)

  Sandown

  Shaklin

  Wooton Bridge

  Brading

  Cowes/East Cowes

  Ventnor (separate health check funded by RDA)

  West Sussex

  Pullborough

  Steynning

  Storrington

  Billinghurst

  Surrey

  Haslemere

  Cranleigh

  Buckinghamshire

  Princes Risborough

  Buckingham

  Milton Keynes

  Wolverton

  Stoney Stratford

  664W

  South West

  Devon

  Hatherleigh

  Okehampton

  Holsworthy

  South Molton

  Crediton

  Great Torrington

  Tavistock

  Tamar Valley (pilot) (including Tavistock)

  Collumpton

  Dartmouth

  Ilfracombe

  Ivybridge

  Kingsbridge

  Somerset

  Totnes

  Minehead (pilot) (funded by RDA)

  Cornwall

  Launceston

  Helstone (pilot)

  Camelford and Delabole

  Mevagissey

  Bodmin

  Hayle

  Lostwithiel

  Saltash

  Tamar Valley Torpoint

  Westward Ho!

  Gloucestershire

  Lydney (pilot)

  Cinderford

  Newent

  Coleford

  Stroud

  Cam

  Dursley

  Tewkesbury

  Wotton Under Edge

  Somerset

  Minehead (pilot) (funded by RDA)

  Langford (pilot) (funded by RDA)

  Wiyeliscombe

  Burnham on Sea and HIghbridge

  Chard

  Shepton Malet

  Sturminster Newton

  BANES (Bath and North East Somerset)

  Midsotner Norton and Radstock (pilot) (funded by RDA)

  Wiltshire

  Melksham (pilot)

  Tidworth

  Devizes (pilot)

  Calne

  Corsham

  Trowbridge

  Warminster

  665W

  Westbury

  Wilton

  Dorset

  Bridport (pilot)

  Sturminster Newton

  Shaftsbury

  Science Advisory Council
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the percentage of the membership of her Department's Science Advisory Council which has expertise in environmental matters. [154764]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra has established the Science Advisory Council as an independent. advisory NDPB to provide advice to the CSA and through him to Ministers on the scope, balance and direction of science that underpins the Departments policies. The full terms of reference were set out in the Defra News Release 34/04. The Council membership of 12 covers a wide range of senior, external expertise. Those Members who have a particular background in environmental science issues include:

  Professor John Shepherd, FRS is Professor of Marine Sciences and Director of the Earth System Modelling Initiative at the Southampton Oceanography Centre. University of Southampton. He possesses broad professional/scientific knowledge of environmental science, especially marine ecology, climate management and fisheries management.

  Professor Alan Thorpe is Director of the NERC Centres for Atmospheric Science and Professor of Meteorology at the University of Reading. As an atmospheric science research scientist he has a broad perspective of atmospheric science issues relevant to the environment including air quality and composition.

  Professor Jeffrey Wage is Head of the Department of Agricultural Sciences. Imperial College and Provost of the Wye campus. His principal area of scientific expertise is ecology and the biological control of pests. He has a broad knowledge of the interactions between agriculture and the environment.

  Professor Thomas Meagher is Professor of Plant Biology at the University of St. Andrews and a member of NERC's Environmental Genomics Steering Committee. He specialises in population genetics and its societal relevance of this.

  Professor Richard Mithen is Head of plant food for the health protection programme at the Institute for Food Research. He has broad scientific background in plant and crop science and agricultural production including biodiversity.

  Professor Philip Lowe is Director of the Centre for Rural Economy, University of Newcastle upon Tyne and Director for the Rural Economy and Land Use Programme of the UK Research Councils.

  Dr. Andrew Stirling is a senior lecturer and research fellow within the Science and Technology Policy Research Department, University of Sussex. A social scientist, he also has a broad knowledge of environmental issues and was a board member of Greenpeace International.
  666W
  In appointing Members, we looked for those able to contribute to the issues facing the Department not merely in their chosen areas of expertise but also the wider agenda of the Department. We expect the Council to carry forward much of its work through subgroups and will co-opt appropriate experts as required to bring to bear on the issues. We shall keep the Council's workings and membership under review.

  Warm Front
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what procedures are used to deal with complaints relating to the Warm Front scheme; [154163]

  (2) how the Warm Front scheme is administered. [154164]

  Mr. Morley
  Warm Front is administered by two Scheme Managers, Eaga Partnership and Powergen Warm Front Ltd. The Scheme Managers are responsible for all day to day aspects of running Warm Front including marketing the scheme, processing applications and the appointment and management of installers.

  As part of their role both Scheme Managers have in place procedures to handle complaints about Warm Front. Complaints should be acknowledged in writing within four working days of receipt and a written response provided within ten working days. In cases where it is not possible to adhere to these deadlines Scheme Managers are required to update the complainant with progress every ten working days.

  The Department reviews the number of complaints received and time taken to deal with complaints as part of their regular monitoring of the Scheme Manager's performance.

  In addition, the Department has its own complaints procedure.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Officials
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which former officials of the Department have asked for permission to join(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Deloitte & Touche, (c) Ernst & Young and (d) KPMG. [156911]

  Mr. Caborn
  There have been no requests by former officials of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for permission to join(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Deloitte & Touche, (c) Ernst & Young and (d) KPMG.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what secondments(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Deloitte & Touche, (c) Ernst & Young and (d) KPMG has made to her Department since 2001; for what (i) periods and (ii) tasks the secondments were made; whether secondments of staff from her Department have been made to those firms; and for what (A) periods and (B) tasks. [157060]
  667W
  Mr. Caborn
  There have been no secondments from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Deloitte & Touche, (c) Ernst & Young and (d) KPMG for any period of time since 2001. Nor have there been any secondees from these organisations to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport since 2001.

  Digital Television
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her Department's plans to encourage people to transfer to digital television. [157770]

  Estelle Morris
  The Digital Television Action Plan addresses the need to ensure that consumers are aware of the benefits of switching to digital television; that they

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Awards for All

  Awards in Chorley (Number)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Total sum for Chorley (£)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,190

  4,190

  Awards in Lancashire (Number)

  —

  9

  13

  10

  9

  41

  Total sum for Lancashire (£)

  —

  36,054

  44,963

  34,218

  37,036

  152,271

  Awards in North West (Number)

  —

  12

  37

  20

  30

  99

  Total sum for North West (£)

  —

  43,974

  132,100

  71,323

  117,414

  364,811

  Community Capital

  Awards in Chorley (Number)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total sum for Chorley (£)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Awards in Lancashire (Number)

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Total sum for Lancashire (£)

  —

  —

  —

  200,000

  40,000

  240,000

  Awards in North West (Number)

  3

  1

  1

  2

  5

  12

  Total sum for North West (£)

  588,407

  144,649

  219,623

  754,346

  644,727

  2,351,752

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grants have been made by her Department to support rugby union in(a) the North West, (b) Lancashire and (c) Chorley in each of the last five years. [156511]

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Awards for All

  Awards in Chorley (Number)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total sum for Chorley (£)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Awards in Lancashire (Number)

  —

  2

  9

  4

  16

  31

  Total sum for Lancashire (£)

  2,375

  34,405

  18,695

  64,174

  119,649

  Awards in North West (Number)

  8

  19

  11

  38

  76

  Total sum for North West (£)

  23,675

  75,700

  45,465

  159,750

  304,590

  Community Capital

  Awards in Chorley (Number)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total sum for Chorley (£)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Awards in Lancashire (Number)

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  4

  Total sum for Lancashire (£)

  —

  —

  —

  501,876

  172,445

  674,323

  Awards in North West (Number)

  2

  —

  1

  6

  2

  11

  Total sum for North West (£)

  752,199

  —

  30,575

  699,661

  1,167,445

  2,649.880

  Ministerial Speeches
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport how many speeches she made between 9 June 2003 and 1 February 2004; and where a copy of each speech can be obtained. [156153]

  Tessa Jowell
  The information is as follows.
  668W
  get clear authoritative information on the options open to them; and the right advice on equipment and installation. The Action Plan's Market Preparation Group and the Communications Strategy Group are taking this work forward. The Action Plan, together with details of the work undertaken to date, are available on the website: www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk.

  Grants
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grants have been made by her Department to support rugby league in(a) the North West, (b) Lancashire and (c) Chorley in each of the last five years. [156510]

  Mr. Caborn
  Details of Lottery support from Sport England for Rugby League are as follows:

  Mr. Caborn
  Details of Lottery support from Sport England for Rugby Union are as follows:

  9 June 2003 1 February 2004

  Date

  Details

  9 June 2003

  FT Business of Sport Conference

  12 June 2003

  Speech to London Business School

  17 June 2003

  Valuing Culture Conference

  24 June 2003

  Speech to Royal College of Physicians Faculty of Public Health Medicine Annual Scientific Conference

  25 June 2003

  IPPR Seminar in Newcastle

  669W

  9 June 2003 to 1 February 2004

  Date

  Details

  3 July 2003

  Lottery Monitor Annual Conference

  7 July 2003

  Music Education Councils 'Importance of Music'Symposium

  15 July 2003

  Digital Stakeholders Group Meeting

  23 July 2003

  British Library

  23 August 2003

  Speech and CA to TV Festival, Edinburgh

  18 September 2003

  Royal Television Society, Cambridge

  14 October 2003

  Speech on Cultural Identity, Egypt

  17 November 2003

  Speech to CBI on Tourism

  19 November 2003

  Speech to Business In Sport and Leisure

  4 December 2003

  Speech to Arts & Kids

  4 December 2003

  Speech to Millennium Commission

  16 December 2003

  Speech to All Party Media Group

  13 January 2004

  Speech to IPPR

  27 January 2004

  Speech at Westminster Forum

  The text of all major ministerial speeches can be found on the DCMS website www.culture.gov.uk

  Official Travel
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was spent on travel by officials and Ministers in her Department in each year since 1997. [157789]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following table shows departmental expenditure on travel and subsistence. An analysis on travel only is not recorded on the Department's accounting system and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

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

  Financial year

  £

  2003–041

  735,669.48

  2002–03

  876,636.96

  2001–02

  750,593.38

  2000–01

  811,985.53

  1999–2000

  755,429.32

  1998–99

  643,283.50

  1997–98

  582,564.51

  1 Cost shown in 2003–04 are to the 25 February 2004

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people in her Department are entitled to travel first class by rail when travelling to perform their responsibilities. [157797]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS travel and subsistence rules encourage staff to use Standard Class travel wherever possible. To obtain best value for money, management of the policy is delegated to line management who are responsible for authorisation and economical management of all official travel. While first class travel is permitted for some grades many of them travel at standard class unless, for example, they need extra space or comfort to work during travel.

  The number of people entitled to travel by first class rail when travelling in the UK to perform their responsibilities is 124 (including Ministers). The number of people entitled to travel by first class rail when travelling overseas to perform their responsibilities is 400 (including Ministers).
  670W

  Sports (Governing Bodies)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support has been offered to the national governing bodies of sport to enable them to fulfil the requirements of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority; and if she will make a statement. [156811]

  Mr. Caborn
  Governing bodies have to become, or work in partnership with, a recognised Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) Awarding Body before their qualifications can be added to the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). The Central Council for Physical Recreation is providing support and guidance to help governing bodies achieve this.

  Sports coach UK offers technical support to Awarding Bodies to ensure that NQF submissions meet QCA requirements.

  Tourism
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department is taking to promote tourism in(a) the Ribble Valley, (b) Lancashire and (c) the North West. [156493]

  Mr. Caborn
  In April 2003 Regional Development Agencies took on formal strategic responsibility for promoting tourism within their regions. We are encouraging them to work towards enlarging the overall national market, in a manner consistent with the national marketing strategy. The North West Development Agency (NWDA) will receive Government funding of £713,000 per annum over 2003–06 towards implementing their tourism strategy for the region. Part of this strategy includes the creation of five new Destination Management Organisations (DMOs). Lancashire and Blackpool Tourist Board will be the DMO for the Lancashire sub region and its board will represent the county's tourism interests. It is anticipated that the Ribble Valley will play a significant and supporting role in the establishment of the new tourism support structures. A bid is currently with NWDA for funding for the new DMO.

  In addition, the Ribble Valley is featured in Visit Britain's domestic Outdoor England campaign, launched in Autumn 2003, which encourages tourists to walk along the Ribble Way or cycle round the Lancashire Cycleway Northern Loop. A photograph of Ribble Valley is also featured prominently in the brochure. Details can be found on www.visitengland.com/outdoorengland.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimates she has made of the indirect economic effect of visitor generated revenue on(a) the South Kensington economy, (b) the London economy and (c) the UK economy of expenditures by the Natural History Museum; what estimates she has made of the multiplier effect of the direct expenditure of the Natural History Museum on (i) the South Kensington economy, (ii) the London economy and (iii) the UK economy; and if she will make a statement. [156892]
  671W
  Estelle Morris
  The DCMS has not made any of the estimates referred to in the question.

  However, I am aware that an independent report commissioned by the Natural History Museum (NHM) "Treasurehouse and Powerhouse, an assessment of the scientific, cultural and economic value of the Museum", was published on 11 February 2004. This Report suggests that:
  Expenditure generated for the London and UK economies by visitors to the NHM is £55.7 million to £59.5 million pa; and that
  The multiplier effect of the Museum's direct expenditure of £52 million (for 2002–03), on the UK and London economies is £161.56 million to £189.55 million.

  The report made no estimates of the impact of the NHM on the economy of South Kensington.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to reduce regulations imposed on the tourism industry. [157140]

  Mr. Caborn
  With the exception of the Licensing Act 2003, which integrates six archaic licensing regimes into a single efficient system, DCMS does not have direct responsibility for the majority of regulations that affect the tourism industry. In pursuit of the DCMS Public Spending Agreement objective to increase the productivity of the domestic tourism industry, my Department will continue to work hard with other Departments to ensure that the burden of regulation is reasonable, and that regulation is applied sympathetically and consistently.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to give grants for the tourism industry in non-assisted areas. [157684]

  Mr. Caborn
  The DCMS does not give direct grants to the tourism industry.

  The DCMS sponsors VisitBritain to promote Britain as a holiday destination to foreign visitors and England as a holiday destination to the British. The DCMS annual grant to VisitBritain is of the order of £50 million.

  In April 2003 strategic responsibility for tourism in the regions was passed to the Regional Development Agencies. It is the Government's view that decisions on investment are better made at the regional level, rather than by central Government.

  West End Theatres
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards theatres based in the West End of London. [157784]

  Estelle Morris
  The commercially owned and operated theatres which make up London's theatreland are outside the remit of this Department. I will however be meeting with the Theatres Trust and others in the near future to discuss the findings of their report, Act Now! Modernising London's West End Theatres, published last October. I hope we can have an informed debate on the report's conclusions.
  672W

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  CPS Direct
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans she has for CPS Direct. [156335]

  The Solicitor-General
  A key component of the Government's criminal justice reform is to transfer responsibility for determining the charge in criminal proceedings from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service. This change is embodied in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The early involvement of prosecutors will ensure that the right charge is put before the court and will help police officers to gather more quickly the evidence the prosecutor will need to prove the case.

  To fulfil this new role the CPS will make prosecutors available to provide early advice or charging decisions at any time of the day or night. Daytime cover will generally be provided by local prosecutors based in police stations, but this is not feasible or cost-effective throughout the night. The CPS will therefore provide cover during quieter periods by means of a national telephone-based service known as CPS Direct.

  In September 2003, the CPS Direct pilot was launched to provide out of hours cover for police stations in Humberside, parts or West Yorkshire and the London boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark. The pilot uses sophisticated telephony and IT links to connect police officers to prosecutors and is currently staffed by 13 experienced prosecutors working from their homes. They provide cover from 5 pm to 9 am each weekday and for 24 hours a day at the weekend and on public holidays. As at 22 February 2004, the pilot scheme had provided the police with 6,866 written decisions or advices.

  Many CPS areas and police forces already have "shadow" arrangements in place ahead of the new statutory provisions and from 1 April 2004, there will be a phased migration to the full statutory scheme. As areas move to the statutory scheme CPS Direct will gradually expand to provide them with out of hours cover. Current forecasts indicate that CPS Direct will eventually require around 80 prosecutors.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Deaf-blind Children and Adults
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) whether children's trusts will be given responsibility for implementing Social Care for Deaf-blind Children and Adults Local Authority Circular (2001)8; [154640]

  (2) whether children's directors will be given specific responsibilities in relation to deaf-blind children. [154643]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Green Paper "Every Child Matters" set out proposals for the development of children's trusts to integrate children's services and said one of the key services within trusts should be children's social services. "Every Child Matters" also set out that the Government intend to put forward legislation to require directors of children's services to be appointed, who would be accountable for education and children's
  673W
  social services and for overseeing services for children delegated to the local authority by other services. We are currently considering responses to the Green Paper and will shortly set out a programme for change for children's services.

  Excellence in Cities Programme
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent on the Excellence in Cities programme in each year since 1998–99; what his estimate is of annual expenditure up to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [156585]

  Mr. Miliband
  Expenditure on the Excellence in Cities programme since 1998 is as follows:

  £

  Expenditure

  1999/2000

  24,344,435

  2000/01

  138,849,734

  2001/02

  245,230.101

  2002/03

  242,016,353

  2003/04 (provisional)

  272,164,265

  Estimated expenditure between 2004/05 and 2005/06 is as follows:

  £

  Estimated expenditure

  2004/05

  306,240,000

  2005/06

  386,240,000

  These figures reflect the success of this programme and its rapid expansion. They do not include expenditure on the related Behaviour Improvement Programme (BIP) and the Leadership Incentive Grant (LIG) which are overseen by EiC partnerships in EiC areas. Currently the Department invests £65.9 million annually on BIP and £148.5 million annually on LIG. The figures also exclude spending on specialist and beacon schools which, although utilised as part of the EiC strategy, belong to wider national programmes.

  The EiC programme now covers 57 whole authority areas as well as 51 Excellence Clusters covering smaller pockets of deprivation.

  As well as continuing to expand Excellence Clusters, we are also expanding primary EiC to provide behavioural support and extended opportunities for gifted and talented children in our most deprived primary schools. This help will not be confined to EiC areas but will include all schools meeting the relevant criteria, and will provide the support they need to ensure that their most disadvantaged pupils are better able to access the national primary strategy.

  The EiC programme is now paying off. GCSE exam results last year were the best yet for EiC schools. Schools in Excellence in Cities whole authority partnerships improved at more than twice the rate of schools elsewhere with average gains of 2.5 percentage points compared to 1.2 percentage points in non-EiC schools.

  There was also a significant impact on behaviour and attendance—with standards again improving fastest in EiC schools.
  674W

  Higher Education Bill
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received since 27 January from(a) the Scottish Executive and (b) Scottish universities on the effects of the Higher Education Bill on Scotland. [155476]

  Alan Johnson
  We have not received representations from the Scottish Executive or from Scottish universities since 27 January. However, my right hon. Friend and I are in regular contact with Ministers in all devolved Administrations and with Universities UK which represents the interests of universities in all devolved nations as well as in England.

  Lord Levy
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the purpose was of the education-related meeting attended by Lord Levy on 21 January; who the other attendees were; and if he will make a statement. [157755]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Lord Levy did not attend any meetings with Education Ministers on 21 January.

  New Schools
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) value and (b) number of new schools built in each of the regions of England was in the last five years for which records are available. [156957]

  Mr. Miliband
  We do not hold information about the value and number of new schools that have been built. This information is held locally. We have, however, made available significant support to build new schools and to expand, replace and repair school accommodation. The majority of our support is allocated by needs-related formulae to local authorities and schools, who make individual investment decisions, based on priorities in their asset management plans. Total central Government support for school buildings capital investment over the last five years and for future years is as follows:

  £ billion

  1999–2000

  1.4

  2000–01

  2.1

  2001–02

  2.2

  2002–03

  2.8

  2003–04

  3.8

  2004–05

  4.5

  2005–06

  5.1

  Pupil Places (Romsey)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many spare places have been available at the beginning of each school year at each school in the Romsey constituency since 1997–98. [157078]

  Mr. Miliband
  The number of spare places at each school in the Romsey constituency since 1998 as collected through the annual surplus places survey is set
  675W
  out in the following tables. The figures state the position at the beginning of the calendar year rather than the

  Romsey primary schools surplus places

  School name

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2003

  Basset Green Primary School

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Awbridge Primary School

  43

  50

  37

  50

  4

  Knightwood Primary School

  —

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Braishfield Primary School

  0

  1

  0

  0

  7

  Broughton Primary School

  29

  28

  21

  26

  26

  Chandler's Ford Infant School

  67

  90

  97

  92

  59

  Merdon Junior School

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  North Baddesley Infant School

  77

  47

  60

  46

  22

  Fryern Junior School

  74

  75

  90

  101

  2

  Romsey Infant School

  2

  18

  24

  44

  60

  Romsey Junior School

  56

  41

  35

  36

  68

  Cupernham Junior School

  12

  12

  12

  0

  0

  Stockbridge Primary School

  8

  19

  12

  16

  0

  Wallop Primary School

  41

  23

  18

  37

  57

  Wellow School

  38

  31

  29

  37

  0

  Wherwell Primary School

  0

  0

  0

  6

  4

  Fryern Infant School

  33

  41

  40

  37

  27

  Hiltingbury Infant School

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  North Baddesley Junior School

  104

  118

  124

  134

  0

  Hiltingbury Junior School

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Halterworth Community Primary School

  0

  0

  15

  4

  0

  Scantabout Primary School

  19

  23

  0

  0

  0

  Cupernham Infant School

  16

  23

  41

  68

  68

  Ampfield Church of England Primary School

  27

  18

  21

  16

  17

  Barton Stacey Church of England Primary School

  65

  49

  48

  56

  30

  King's Somborne Church of England Primary School

  12

  17

  29

  22

  20

  Nursling Church of England Primary School

  17

  2

  10

  11

  1

  Rownhams St. John's Church of England Primary School

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  West Tytherley Church of England Primary School

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  Lockerley Church of England Endowed Primary School

  0

  0

  8

  2

  7

  Longparish Church of England Primary School

  5

  8

  3

  7

  0

  Romsey Abbey Church of England Primary School

  7

  0

  21

  1

  0

  St. Swithun Wells Catholic Primary School

  130

  157

  50

  72

  84

  Bassett Green Primary School

  —

  61

  31

  57

  71

  St Francis Church of England Primary School

  0

  0

  0

  8

  20

  Total

  882

  952

  881

  987

  679

  Romsey primary schools surplus places

  School name

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2003

  The Mountbatten School

  0

  6

  0

  0

  15

  The Toynbee School

  33

  0

  11

  0

  0

  The Romsey School

  68

  5

  0

  0

  23

  Test Valley School

  8

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Thornden School

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cantell School

  113

  321

  324

  228

  115

  St. George Catholic School for Boys

  —

  0

  0

  0

  86

  Total

  222

  332

  335

  228

  242

  School Buildings
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been spent on school buildings in the Ribble Valley and Fulwood, broken down by school, in each year since 1997. [156490]

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money was spent on school buildings in each year since 1997 in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley; and if he will list the schools in Chorley where such money was spent. [157256]

  Mr. Miliband
  The majority of capital support is allocated to schools and local education authorities (LEAs) by formula, and they decide how to invest it in line with their asset management plans. The Department
  676W
  school year. We do not have figures for 2002 as there was no surplus places survey in that year.

  does not, therefore, have complete information about all the capital investments in each school. This information should be held locally. However, the following table shows the total capital support made by this Government for school buildings in Lancashire LEA since 1997–98 (including support for a PFI project in 1999–2000).

  £ million

  1997–98

  13.3

  1998–99

  17.0

  1999–2000

  35.2

  2000–01

  38.0

  2001–02

  30.0

  2002–03

  46.5

  2003–04

  62.6

  677W
  We have to date, also allocated indicative funding for future years worth approximately £36.5 million in 2004–05 and £17.3 million in 2005–06.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of total expenditure on the education of pupils with special needs in(a) mainstream schools and (b) special schools in the latest year for which figures are available. [156000]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Information about expenditure on the education of pupils with special educational needs is collected from local education authorities on their Section 52 Budget Statements. Where money is delegated to mainstream schools, figures are indicative rather than actual as final decisions are made by the schools. Latest figures available are for 2003–04, as reported by LEAs at 19 February 2004.

  Total estimated gross expenditure for pupils in mainstream schools is £1,717,253,601. This includes support for pupils with statements and for those with special educational needs (SEN) but without statements. This expenditure will be in addition to their normal place funding.

  Total estimated gross expenditure for pupils in special schools is £1,511,349,567. This includes pupils in maintained special schools and fees for pupils in independent and non-maintained special schools.

  In addition, an estimated £236,233,036 will be spent in this financial year on centrally funded SEN activities. These include the costs of educational psychology services, assessment and statementing, parent partnership services and the provision of information.

  Overall, the estimated gross expenditure on pupils with special educational needs in the year 2003–04 is £3,464,836,204.

  Specialist School Status
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many schools from(a) rural and (b) urban areas applied for specialist school status in the October 2003 application round; [156881]

  (2) how many schools from (a) rural and (b) urban areas were granted specialist school status in the October 2003 application round. [156882]

  Mr. Miliband
  Of the 403 schools which applied for specialist school status in the October 2003 application round, 118 (29 per cent.) were from rural areas and 285 (71 per cent.) were from urban areas. Of the 238 schools then granted specialist school status in that round, 71 (30 per cent.) were from rural areas and 167 (70 per cent.) were from urban areas. These proportions are in line with the overall national picture: 27 per cent. of the 3,126 maintained secondary schools in England are located in rural areas, and 73 per cent. are in urban areas.

  Student Drop-out Rates
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures his Department is taking to reduce student drop-out rates. [156523]
  678W
  Alan Johnson
  The UK non-completion rate has stayed broadly the same at around 17–18 per cent. since 1991–92, and in the latest figures published in December 2003 by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) it fell to just over 16 per cent. This represents one of the highest completion rates in the OECD and we are determined to maintain this level of performance.

  We have asked HEFCE to bear down on non-completion and their national co-ordination team, Action on Access, is working with institutions to improve retention rates and to spread good practice from those institutions with low drop-out rates and good access figures. The £255 million which HEFCE has allocated to institutions in 2003–04 for widening access and improving retention recognises some of the additional costs of supporting students from non-traditional backgrounds and those who are less well prepared for higher education.

  Research indicates that the reasons for non-completion are many and varied, but one factor is incompatibility between the student and their course or institution. It is vital that potential HE students have the right information on which to base sound decisions. We are working with the National Union of Students to develop a new guide to help students narrow down their choices and make decisions about what and where to study. The guide will be linked to the new Aimhigher portal that launched in September 2003. A new National Student Survey is planned to take place in January 2005, seeking the views of final year students on their learning experience. HEFCE will also ensure that there is a wide range of published information about the quality and standards of institutions' programmes.

  Another factor which has been associated with non-completion is financial hardship. In addition to statutory student support, discretionary support is also available as a safety net for vulnerable students. For 2003–04, Hardship Loans are available for students who are in such serious financial difficulty that their access to, or continued attendance on a course may be at risk. Grants from the Hardship Fund are also available to help students access and remain in higher education.

  From the academic year 2004–05, the Hardship Loans budget will be amalgamated with the Hardship Fund into the new non-repayable, Access to Learning Fund. Students who would previously have been eligible for a Hardship Loan should be able to apply for a grant rather than a loan.

  From 2006–07, under proposals laid out in the Higher Education Bill, the poorest students entering higher education will receive up to £2,700 in up-front support, and we are raising the levels of maintenance loan to meet the basic living costs of the mid-range student, in response to the recent Student Income and Expenditure Survey.

  Additionally, institutions will, under the terms of access agreements, be required to provide further financial help to poorer students in the form of bursaries.

  Student Finance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many graduates are not
  679W
  making repayments on their income contingent student loans; and what proportion of the total number of such loans outstanding this represents. [155452]

  Alan Johnson [holding answer 27 February 2004]
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Borrowers enter repayment status in the April following graduation or otherwise leaving their course. There were 1,409,000 borrowers in the United Kingdom with income contingent student loan accounts at the end of the financial year 2002–03 of whom approximately 298,000 had accounts in repayment status. Borrowers can have accounts both in repayment status and not in repayment status if, for example, they have attended a second course of higher education.

  No repayments are due from borrowers who are not in repayment status, although just under 15,000 borrowers made early repayments voluntarily in 2002–03. No repayments are deducted from income-contingent borrowers in repayment status whose income falls below £10,000 per annum. Repayments of income-contingent loans are, apart from a few exceptions, collected through the tax system. Most repayments are notified to the Student Loans Company more than one year after the end of the tax year, after which time has to be allowed for reconciliation with their records. Therefore the data on the number of borrowers with income-contingent loans where repayments are not being deducted because the borrower's income is below the repayment threshold, or for some other reason, are not yet available.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what projections he has made of(a) the size of official student loan debt, (b) the likely annual interest accruing on that debt, (c) the likely total repayments of (i) debt and (ii) interest on that debt and (d) the likely subsidy required from his Department to support the official student loan debt in (A) 2007 and (B) 2009; and on what assumptions his calculations are based. [155538]

  Alan Johnson [holding answer 23 February 2004]
  Estimates of the cost of subsidising both maintenance and fee loans in 2006–07 were set out in the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) published on 8 January alongside the Higher Education Bill. These estimates—rather than projections—are based on the different scenarios set out in the RIA. Because of the nature of a variable scheme, the costs vary greatly according to the decisions that both higher education institutions and students take, for example the number of students who decide to defer their fees, and the pattern of fee charging that emerges.

  The economic cost of providing student loans is made up of the interest rate subsidy on loans together with the cost of any loans which are never repaid, for example loans written-off after 25 years or on death.

  Copies of the Regulatory Impact Assessment were placed in the Library of the House; it is also available on the Department for Education and Skills website.

  Teaching Posts
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many(a) teachers and
  680W
  (b) teacher full-time equivalents were employed by Hampshire county council at each key stage in each year since 1997; [157076]

  (2) how many teaching posts are vacant and have been unfilled for over three months at Key Stage (a)1, (b) 2 and (c) 3 in Hampshire; [157287]

  (3) if he will list, by subject, teaching vacancies that have been unfilled for more than (a) three months and (b) one year at Key Stages 3 and 4 in Hampshire. [157288]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on teacher numbers and vacancies by Key Stage and on the duration of teacher vacancies is not collected centrally. The latest available data on teacher numbers and vacancies in maintained nursery/primary, secondary and special schools by local education authority were published on 20 January in the statistical volume "The School Workforce in England 2003", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The table is also available on the statistics section of the DfES website at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/ DB/VOL/v000443/index.Shtml

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Accession States
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence his Department has collated on the number of nationals from(a) Poland and (b) other accession states who have already arranged transportation to the UK following 1 May; and if he will make a statement. [157074]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no figures for the numbers of any EU nationals who have arranged to visit the UK after 1 May.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are in place to combat the drugs trade in Afghanistan. [157022]

  Mr. Rummell
  As lead nation for counter-narcotics activity in Afghanistan, the UK supports the Afghan National Drug Control Strategy. which was adopted by President Karzai in May 2003. The strategy proposes activities in four key areas: improved drugs law enforcement; alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers; capacity building for Afghan drugs institutions; and public awareness campaigns/treatment programmes to help reduce demand. The UK has committed £70 million over three years and additional personnel for the British Embassy in Kabul to drive forward implementation of the strategy.

  On 8/9 February 2004 the UK co-hosted with the Afghan Government and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime an International Counter Narcotics Conference on Afghanistan in Kabul. Over 300 delegates attended from Afghanistan, partner countries and international organisations. The conference demonstrated the firm resolve of the Afghan Government and the international community to tackle the drugs problem in Afghanistan. It agreed action plans for future work in each of the key areas.
  681W

  Antarctica
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat concerning(a) increased surface level transport activities in Antarctica and (b) the construction of a seasonal road to the South Pole; and if he will make a statement. [157707]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK has not had any discussions with the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat because, although agreement has been reached on the establishment of such a secretariat in Argentina, it has not yet commenced operations. It is, however, hoped that it will be possible for it to do so on a provisional basis during this year.

  The United States of America has developed a Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE) on the "Development and Implementation of Surface Traverse Capabilities in Antarctica", which is available on the Internet at http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/antarct/treaty/cees.htm. This proposes that an ice-road be developed between McMurdo Station and Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station to supplement the existing air-support for the re-supply of facilities at the South Pole.

  The CEE will be examined by the Antarctic Treaty's Committee on Environmental Protection, which will then provide advice to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, at its meeting in Cape Town in May 2004.

  Balwant Singh
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the papers of Balwant Singh (ECR/995346/03/S) were sent to London. [151579]

  Mr. Mullin
  It is not our practice to disclose details of individual entry clearance cases in a public forum. I am withholding the information requested about the outcome of this case under exemption 5 of part 2 the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However. I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Burma
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent political developments in Burma. [156234]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We remain deeply concerned about the political situation in Burma. Although the Burmese regime's plans for a National Convention are a step in the right direction, the process needs to be inclusive and transparent, involving all political parties and ethnic groups. Convention participants must be allowed full freedom of speech, movement and political activity. As a first step Daw Aung San Suu kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) colleagues must be fully released and NLD offices re-opened.

  Documents
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which documents are held by his Department written by(a) P. H. Pearse, (b) Thomas J. Clarke, (c) Thomas Macdonagh, (d) Edward Daly, (e) William Pearse, (f) Michael
  682W
  O'Hanrahan, (g) Joseph Mary Plunkett, (h) John MacBride, (i) Sean Heuston, (j) Michael Mallin, (k) Eamonn Ceannt, (l) Con Colbert, (m) Thomas Kent, (n) Sean Mac Diarmada, (o) James Connolly and (p) Sir Roger Casement. [156306]

  Mr. Straw
  All Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) records are normally transferred to The National Archives after 30 years. All FCO records relating to Sir Roger Casement are available to the public there. In the time available to answer this question we have not been able to trace any records withheld by this Department relating to the others named or to the Easter Rising of April-May 1916. I will write to the hon. Member to confirm the position.

  EU First Pillar (Regulations and Directives)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many regulations were passed and how many directives were implemented under the European Union's first pillar for each year since 1997. [157107]

  Mr. MacShane
  We assess that the number of regulations made was as follows:

  1997—2,339

  1998—2,852

  1999—2,802

  2000—2,882

  2001—2,600

  2002—2,125

  2003—2,176

  We assess that the number of EU directives issued was as follows:

  1997—85

  1998—109

  1999—100

  2000—91

  2001—83

  2002—159

  2003—134

  All the data above cover the period from December (of the preceding year) to November of that year inclusive.

  The above regulations and directives were passed under the European Union's first pillar.

  The data above are taken from the LexisNexis online database (a subscription service at: http://web.lexisnexis.com/professional), which draws on the Official Journal and other documents as provided by CELEX—the computerized documentation system on Community law.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent negotiations between the United Kingdom and Argentina concerning flights to and from the Falkland Islands, with particular reference to the number of flights per week that will be permitted; which airline will operate the service; and what was discussed concerning the issue of sovereignty of the islands. [156864]
  683W
  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to a written ministerial statement that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), made today on the issue of air links between the Falkland Islands and the South American mainland. The issue of sovereignty was not discussed during Mr. Rammell's recent visit to Argentina.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent talks in Argentina regarding charter flight links to the Falkland Islands. [156996]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written Statement I made today on the issue of air links between the Falkland Islands and the South American mainland.

  Gallipoli
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government has made to the Turkish Government and relevant authorities regarding plans to charge an admission fee to Gallipoli battlefields in the Gelibolu Historic National Park; and if he will make a statement. [156963]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Turkish authorities have confirmed to the organisers of ANZAC day that there will be no entry or administration fee to enter the Gallipoli battlefields in the Gelibolu Historic National Park.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Indonesian Ambassador to the Court of St. James's in connection with freedom of religion in Indonesia. [156815]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I met with the Indonesian Ambassador on 6 October and 10 November 2003 and on both occasions we discussed a wide range of issues, including religion.

  The Government are committed to working with Indonesia to encourage religious tolerance. Together with the Department for International Development, we have committed over £4 million to help establish the United Nations Development Programme Conflict Prevention and Recovery Unit in Jakarta. The Unit will build up capacity in conflict reduction and recovery in the provinces affected by religious conflict. This includes funding projects like the Maluku Reconciliation Conference, which was held in London and Brussels in January 2004 and brought together Muslim and Christians leaders from Maluku to discuss how to establish peace in the province.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the extent of freedom of religion in Indonesia. [156816]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The many ethnic and religious communities of the Indonesian archipelago have a long history of generally peaceful co-existence. The majority 684W
  of Indonesians are Muslim and most are moderate and tolerant of other religions. Religious freedom in Indonesia is enshrined in the constitution.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors underlay the decision by coalition forces in Iraq to reject a plan by the Iraqi Census Board to take a nationwide census on 30th June and then make an electoral roll available by 1 September. [154246]

  Mr. Rammell
  There is no Iraqi Census Board. The Iraqi Central Statistical Organisation did propose a plan last year to conduct a census upon the basis of which elections could be held. The plan was rejected by the Iraqi Minister of Planning, to whom the Central Statistical Organisation reports. No decision was ever taken on this matter by any Coalition body.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about control of the oil supply and revenues in Iraq. [156198]

  Mr. Rammell
  Iraqi oil and the revenue it generates are both governed by UN Security Council Resolution 1483. This stresses the right of the Iraqi people to control their own natural resources. It also states that in the interim period, 95 per cent. of the proceeds from export sales of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas shall be deposited into the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI). The remaining 5 per cent. is deposited into the UN Compensation Fund (to meet outstanding claims for reparations against Iraq). UNSCR 1483 also makes it clear that sale of Iraqi oil is to be in line with best international practice.

  The DFI balance is available on the Coalition Provisional Authority website www.cpa-iraq.org and both the DFI and the practice of selling Iraqi oil are to be audited by independent public accountants under supervision by the International Advisory and Monitoring Board. This body contains representatives from the UN, the World Bank, the IMF and the Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development.

  Libya
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Libyan authorities regarding that country's relationship with the IRA. [155650]

  Mr. Rammell
  During the visit to the United Kingdom of 9–10 February 2004 by the Libyan Foreign Minister, Mr. Abdurrahman Shalgam, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised Libya's past links with the Provisional IRA as part of a discussion covering a broad range of bilateral and regional issues.

  North Korea
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role the UK is playing in assessing what nuclear threat is presented by North Korea. [157019]
  685W
  Mr. Rammell
  As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and as a Depositary State of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty the UK has held discussions with the UN, the US, EU partners and regional governments so as to inform our assessment of the threat posed by North Korea's nuclear programmes. We monitor developments closely and remain in close contact with members of the international community.

  Somalia
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answers of 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 92W, on the Somali National Reconciliation Conference, if he will list by name the attendees at the Somali National Reconciliation Conference at the Safari Park Hotel outside Nairobi; and whose attendance was supported by the British Government. [157606]

  Mr. Mullin
  The list of participants in the consultations is given as follows. A number of support staff to the leaders were also accommodated at the venue. The United Kingdom did not support the attendance of any specific leader but pooled funds with other donors.

  Mr. Ahmed Sh. Mohamed Lohos;
  Mr. Mohamed Osman Maye;
  Mr. Osman Ali "Atto"
  Mr. Mohamed Qanyare Afrah;
  Mr. Ahdulaziz Sheikh Yosouf;
  Mr. Hassan Abshir Farah;
  Col. Hassan Abdi Galad;
  Col. Abdullahi Yussuf;
  Mr. Abdalla Derow Isak;
  Mr. Hussein Farah Aideed;
  Col. Hassan Mohamed Nur;
  Mr. Mow'lid Ma'ane Mohamud;
  Mr. Omar Mohamoud Mohamed;
  Mr. Mohamed Sayyid Aden;
  Gen. Mohamed Hersi Morgan;
  Mr. Mohamed Omar Habeeb "Dheere";
  Mr. Hilolwe Imar Omar;
  Mr. Abdullahi Sheikh Ismail;
  Sheikh Adan Mohamed Nur "Madhobe";
  Mr. Sharif Salah Mohamed Ali;
  Mr. Mohamed Aden Weiyel;
  Mr. Musa Sudi Yalahow;
  Mr. Bare Aden Shire "Hirale";
  Col. Abdirizak Isak Bihi;
  Mr. AbdikassimSalad Hassan;
  Mr. Mohamed Abdi Yusuf;
  Mr. Husseun Haji Bod;
  Mr. Yusuf Dheg;
  Mr. Abdirahman Ibbi;
  Mr. Omar Hashi Aden;
  Mr. Zakeriya Haji Mohamud;
  Mr. Abdikarim Ahmed Ali;
  Mr. Ali Bashi Haji Mohamud;
  Mr. Mustaf Mukhtar Gudow;
  Mrs. Asha Haji Elmi;
  Prof. Deeqa Ol-u-jog;
  686W
  Mrs. Saredo Mohammed Abdalla;
  Mrs. Khadija Sufi Hussein;
  Mrs. Zakia Abdissalan Alin;
  Mr. Jama Mohamed Galib
  Col. Ahmed Omar Jess;
  Mr Mohamed Ibrahim "Haabsade";
  Eng. Mohamed Hussein Addow;
  Mr. Farah Addow "Sindico";
  Mr. Mohamed Farah Jumaleh;
  Mr. Abdi Osman Farah;
  Mr. Jama Ali Jama.

  Sri Lanka
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Sri Lanka. [156248]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We support the Sri Lankan peace process politically and practically and welcome the progress made since February 2002 when the ceasefire came into effect. The parliamentary election in Sri Lanka on 2 April comes at a crucial moment for the peace process. We urge all Sri Lanka's political leaders to ensure that their, and their supporters', actions and rhetoric during the election campaign do nothing to undermine the important gains made in the peace process or to make it more difficult to resume peace process talks after the election. It is also essential that the election is free of intimidation, fair and non-violent throughout Sri Lanka. We urge all political parties and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to commit themselves to supporting the early resumption of peace negotiations after the election so that they can move forward together in building a peaceful and prosperous country. We are working closely with international partners to reinforce these messages.

  UN Security Council
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on(a) the size of the UN Security Council and (b) the limitations of its members' veto rights. [157109]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government are long-standing supporters of enlargement of the Security Council in order to ensure that it better represents the modern world. We support an increase in the membership of the Council from 15 to 24, with five additional permanent members and four additional non-permanent members. In particular, we have supported permanent membership for Japan and Germany, and for developing countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America. In the latter two regions, we have said that we see India and Brazil as the pre-eminent candidates. It is, however, primarily for the countries and regions concerned to make their case to the wider UN membership.

  The Government believe that the veto should be used with restraint and in accordance with the principles of the Charter.

  United Nations (Surveillance)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether staff at GCHQ complied with a request from the US National
  687W
  Security Agency to assist with a surveillance operation on members of the UN Security Council in January 2003; [157402]

  (2) whether a memorandum was sent to GCHQ by the US National Security Agency asking for assistance in the surveillance of UN Security Council delegations. [157403]

  Mr. Straw
  It is the well-established and long-standing practice of successive Governments not to comment on details of the intelligence relationship between the UK and US.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether(a) written and (b) oral assurances were given to staff at GCHQ that action to assist with surveillance of UN Security Council delegations would be legal. [157404]

  Mr. Straw
  It is the well-established and long-standing practice of successive governments not to respond to speculation about alleged operational activities by the UK security and intelligence services. However. I can provide reassurance that they work entirely within a legal framework which complies with the European Convention on Human Rights and are subject to very rigorous oversight both by Parliamentarians and senior members of the judiciary as provided by statute. Training in the awareness of these legalities is mandatory for all GCHQ operational staff. The Director of GCHQ and I take our responsibilities for GCHQ's compliance with its legal obligations very seriously indeed.

  Uzbekistan
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Uzbekistan about human rights. [157017]

  Mr. Rammell
  We remain deeply concerned by the human rights situation in Uzbekistan and regularly discuss human rights with the Uzbek Government both bilaterally and with our EU partners.

  Last year I discussed our concerns about the human rights situation in a meeting with the Uzbek Ambassador on 8 October, urging the Uzbek authorities to implement the UN Special Rapporteur for Torture's recommendations immediately. At the EU Uzbekistan Co-operation Council on 27 January, the EU reiterated its serious concern about the human rights situation in Uzbekistan. The Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) raised human rights issues with the Uzbek Deputy Prime Minister on 4 February.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office frequently discusses human rights with the Uzbek Ambassador in London and raises human rights issues and individual cases with our EU partners. Our Ambassador in Tashkent continues to raise individual cases, as well as our general concerns, at ministerial level both bilaterally and in conjunction with EU colleagues.
  688W

DEFENCE

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's Private Finance Initiative projects are currently outstanding. [156747]

  Mr. Ingram
  I take this question to refer to those projects that are in competition but have not yet been signed. There are 11 such Private Finance Initiative projects.

  Warships
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current shipbuilding programme for the Royal Navy. [156749]

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

  Future plans include the purchase of two new aircraft carriers, further orders of Type 45 destroyers and Astute Class submarines, the Joint Casualty Treatment Ship, and the progressive replacement of existing RFA vessels through the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability project.

  Looking further ahead, we expect to replace the capability provided by the Type 22 and 23 Frigates with the Future Surface Combatant. It is too early to say how the new capability will be met or when orders will be placed because the project is still at the concept stage.

  Defence Industrial Policy (Trade Unions)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Department has taken to involve trade unions in the defence industrial policy. [156750]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence exchanges views with Trades Unionists on a range of defence industrial issues. The Trade Unions have welcomed the Defence Industrial Policy that we published in October 2002.

  Defence Ministers meet regularly with Trade Unionists. Last Tuesday, 24 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met with the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Union and separately with the General Secretary of Amicus.

  Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on defence procurement and its effect on small and medium-sized enterprises. [156751]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ministry of Defence procurement policy, reinforced by the Government's Defence Industrial Policy, seeks to secure best value for money for the taxpayer and a healthy and competitive defence industry at Original Equipment Manufacturer Level and at the level of Small and Medium Enterprises.
  689W
  The MOD recognises the importance of Small and Medium Enterprises in driving innovation and contributing to the delivery of defence capability. Defence contract opportunities are advertised through publications such as the MOD Defence Contract Bulletin and the Official Journal of European Union. The MOD's Defence Suppliers Service and the Defence Diversification Agency provide information and assistance to smaller firms interested in becoming defence suppliers.

  The MOD also works with the DTI and its Small Business Service (SBS) to maintain awareness of initiatives aimed at harnessing innovation.

  In autumn 2001 a joint MOD/ Industry Code of Best Practice was published covering relationships at all levels within the supply chain including those with Small and Medium Enterprises.

  Iraq
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the provision of full chemical and biological protection to soldiers serving in Iraq. [156752]

  Mr. Hoon
  Even though the threat from chemical and biological agents has reduced considerably since the end of hostilities, a full suite of chemical and biological protection is available for all Service personnel serving in Iraq.

  This consists of a protection suit and respirator, issued as personal equipment; plus collective warning and detection devices for units, such as the Chemical Agent Monitor and the Man-portable Chemical Agent Detector. A number of medical treatments are also available. Most armoured vehicles operating in Iraq are fitted with NEC filters.

  Sufficient stocks of all such protection equipment, including additional suits, are available in theatre.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether cluster bombs manufactured in Israel and packaged at the Royal Ordnance facility in Glascoed were used by British forces during the recent conflict in Iraq. [154891]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cluster artillery shells fused and packaged by BAE Systems Royal Ordnance at Glascoed. following shell manufacture by Israel Munitions Industry, were not used in Iraq during the recent conflict. They have been put into store to maintain operational stock levels.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated replacement costs of military equipment damaged and destroyed owing to use in Iraq since the start of the war in Iraq is(a) in total and (b) for (i) tanks and other armoured vehicles, (ii) aircraft and (iii) helicopters. [154952]

  Mr. Ingram
  We expect to spend some £50 million replacing equipment damaged or destroyed during Operation Telic. The replacement of two Sea King Mk7s lost in Iraq will account for around £35 million of this total. We do not intend to replace the Tornado GR4 aircraft, the Challenger 2 tank and other armoured 690W
  vehicles that were destroyed since we have sufficient numbers within our existing fleets to meet future requirements.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medical evacuations there have been of British military personnel in Iraq since 1 May 2003; and if he will give the reasons for each evacuation. [155783]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been 1.109 medical evacuations of British military personnel in Iraq between 1 May 2003 and February 2004. The evacuations took place for a number of reasons, ranging from trauma to routine medical complaints.

  Army Training
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Army training. [156753]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are two types of Army training: individual training and collective training. Army individual training is undertaken within the Army Training and Recruiting Agency and is split into a number of phases. Initial training, teaches soldier recruits and officer cadets basic military skills. Phase 2, or specialist training, is special to arm training to prepare soldiers for their first appointment in the Field Army. Career training (Phase 3) is continuation and professional development training to enhance individual soldiers' and officers' career progression and to meet the Army's need for specialists.

  The collective training programme is constructed to train the Army for current operations, to prepare it to contribute to Joint Rapid Reaction Force Readiness and Development, and to support Alliance commitments. The ability to deliver trained, ready forces for any contingency remains a key Army priority.

  Aircraft Carrier
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the future aircraft carriers will each be able to operate more than 40 aircraft. [154670]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 9 February 2004,Official Report, column 1178W.

  Chinook Helicopters
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the(a) functional and (b) operational differences are between the Mark 2 Chinook helicopter, the Chinook 47-H and the Mark 3; [156221]

  (2) how the FADEC system in the Mark 2 Chinook differs from that available to the (a) Mark 2a, (b) the Chinook 47-H and (c) the Mark 3; [156222]

  (3) what problems the software changes made to FADEC on the MH47 address; what necessitated these changes; who asked for these changes to be made; what functionality they provide for the MH47 that is not available to the Mark 3 Chinook; for what reasons these changes were not incorporated in the Mark 3 FADEC; when these changes are due to be incorporated; and if he will make a statement; [156223]
  691W
  (4) whether the validation process of the FADEC system fitted to the Mark 3 Chinook is the same as that used in the (a) Mark 2, (b) Mark 2a and (c) MH47 Chinook; what that process comprises; who was contracted to conduct this process for the (i) Mark 2, (ii) Mark 2a, (iii) MH47 and (iv) Mark 3 Chinook; to whom the contractor sub-contracted this work; and if he will make a statement; [156224]

  (5) what work has been conducted on FADEC in the Mark 3 Chinook helicopter at Boscombe Down; what reports Boscombe Down has produced on the work; whether independent sub-contractors produced reports on the Mark 3 FADEC; and if he will make a statement; [156225]

  (6) whether (a) Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd., (b) Chandler Evans Controls Systems and (c) Boeing Helicopters Corp. have given undertakings to his Department about the FADEC fitted to the Mark 3; [156226]

  (7) what problems the (a) Mark 2 Chinook, (b) Mark 2a Chinook and (c) MH47 Chinook helicopters displayed which the Mark 3 was designed to solve; [156229]

  (8) what the basis was for his Department's decision to procure the Mark 3 Chinook helicopter; and if he will make a statement; [156230]

  (9) what tests are required to (a) the aircraft as a whole and (b) component parts, on the Mark 3 Chinook prior to its gaining release to full operational service other than the flight trials being conducted at Boscombe Down; what tests are still to be completed; and when he expects this release to be granted; [156231]

  (10) what cost-benefit analysis was conducted prior to initiating procurement of the Mark 3 Chinook helicopter; who undertook this analysis; and what the results were. [156232]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the right hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Finance
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total value is of assets belonging to his Department, broken down by United Kingdom region; and if he will break down the assets by(a)estates, (b) kit, (c) plant, machinery and vehicles, (d) capital spares, (e) information technology and communications and fassets in course of construction for the same areas for the most recent financial year. [142028]

  Mr. Ingram
  A full regional breakdown of asset values is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, a breakdown of the value of Ministry of Defence's land and buildings by Government office region may be derived from Section 7 of the National Asset Register, last published by the Treasury as Cm 5221 on 19 July 2001. This shows the position for financial year 1999–2000. The latest information on the total value of assets was published on 30 October 2003 in MOD's Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03 (HC 1125, pages 80 and 111). Both the National Asset Register and the Annual Report and Accounts have been placed in the Library of the House.
  692W

  Foreign Ship Chartering
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 44W, on foreign ships, whether his Department has a maximum age for ships it charters; and what the age was of the oldest ship chartered by his Department in relation to the recent conflict in Iraq. [157003]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence does not stipulate a maximum age for ships it charters. As I indicated in my previous answer, age is one of several important criteria which are used to assess suitability for use.

  The oldest foreign flagged freight-carrying ship chartered for the Iraq campaign was 30 years old. The oldest UK-flagged ship was 25 years old. Port State Inspections completed on the two ships prior to charter revealed no deficiencies and both ships completed their tasking to the full satisfaction of the MOD.

  Military Equipment
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he discussed the supply of military and security equipment between Israel and the UK with the Israeli Defence Minister, during his recent visit to the UK. [156515]

  Mr. Hoon
  I met Mr. Shaul Mofaz, Israeli Minister for Defence, on 12 February 2004. We discussed a wide range of issues, including opportunities for the supply of defence and security equipment.

  Mr. Jafar Dhia Jafar
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department was consulted on the application by Mr. Jafar Dhia Jafar for a visa to attend a meeting of the Royal Society in London. [154980]

  Mr. Ingram
  No.

  Procurement Contracts
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which foreign contractors after winning a defence contract have refused to supply the goods in the last five years; and what the reasons given for doing so were in each case. [154941]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost (Exemption 9 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information).

  Sea King Crash (Board of Inquiry)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the Board of Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the air collision of two Sea King helicopters embarked on HMS Ark Royal on 22 March 2003; what action he proposes to take as a result of the findings of the Board of Inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [157073]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not our practice or that of previous Governments to place copies of the reports from Service Board of Inquiry in the Library of the House.
  693W
  A Service Board of Inquiry is an internal fact finding investigation undertaken by the Services for their own use, into the circumstances surrounding a particular accident or incident. There is a principle of confidentiality associated with BOI proceedings, which is intended to encourage the provision of forthright evidence. Accordingly, external distribution of BOI reports is usually limited to the next of kin of service personnel killed in in-service accidents, HM Coroners to assist in their preparations for Inquests, and other bodies with statutory duties to investigate incidents.

  We will, when the investigation by the RN Flight Safety and Accident Investigation Centre is complete, place copies of the Military Aircraft Accident Summary in the Library of the House.

  I shall place information on the implementation of the Board of Inquiry's recommendations in the Library of the House shortly.

  Typhoon
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Typhoon aircraft have been ordered from outside the partner countries; [155131]

  (2) how many countries have expressed interest in ordering Typhoon aircraft. [155132]

  Mr. Ingram
  Eighteen Typhoon aircraft have been ordered from outside the partner countries. In addition, three countries have expressed an interest in ordering Typhoon; this figure does not include countries that have shown only a preliminary interest, for example by requesting information about the aircraft.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether RAF Typhoon aircraft will operate in(a) the Falklands, (b) Gibraltar, (c) Germany and (d) other countries. [155133]

  Mr. Ingram
  Typhoon will have the capacity to operate from bases outside the United Kingdom when this is appropriate to fulfil training and operational needs.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Government is committed to proceeding with the second tranche of Typhoons for the RAF; and if he will make a statement. [155243]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government are committed to proceeding with the second tranche of Typhoon for the RAF, and negotiations with Industry involving the four partner nations are in progress.

  Work Standards
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2004,Official Report, column 1045W, on work strands, what the aspects of (a) military capability and (b) associated overheads in each of the 16 work strands are; and what the overall financial saving targets for the 16 work strands are. [156792]
  694W
  Mr. Ingram [holding answer 27 February 2004]
  The work strands are looking at a range of areas relating to how our armed forces are organised and equipped in line with the policy set out in the Defence White Paper. They will look for opportunities to bear down on all associated overheads. An overall financial savings target has not been set for the work strands. As the Secretary of State for Defence said to the House on 11 December 2003,Official Report, column 1209, our aim is to direct resources at those capabilities that are best able to deliver the range of military effects required.

  Afghanistan
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on UK troop levels in Afghanistan. [156737]

  Mr. Hoon
  We currently have around 490 members of the armed forces deployed in Afghanistan, mostly serving with either the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul, or with our Provincial Reconstruction Team in Mazar-e Sharif.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients were waiting for more than two hours on trolleys in accident and emergency departments of hospitals in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [156581]

  Angela Smith
  The number of hospital trolley waits waiting two hours or more is reported to the Department by Trusts on a quarterly basis.

  Number of hospital trolley waits waiting two hours or more recorded in Northern Ireland 1997–98to2002–03

  Financial year

  Trolley waits waiting more than two hours

  1997–98

  2,335

  1998–99

  3,943

  1999–2000

  6,040

  2000–01

  10,346

  2001–02

  15,041

  2002–03

  25,131

  Note:

  In a small number of cases Trusts have returned data for a representative sample of trolley waits.

  Source:

  Departmental information Return CH10

  After-school Clubs
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria are applied in relation to access by children with special needs to after-school clubs in Northern Ireland. [156584]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is a matter for schools to determine the range of activities to be offered, having regard to the needs and abilities of their pupils, and to decide whether individual pupils will take benefit from these activities.
  695W

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the implementation of automated credit transfer for benefit and pension payments in Northern Ireland. [156582]

  Mr. Spellar
  At 13 February 2004, the Social Security Agency has invited 536,234 benefits and pensions customers to convert to Direct Payment. Of these, 273,045, or 50.9 per cent. have already provided their account details.

  Suspended

  Cases

  Dismissed

  Cases

  Prosecuted

  Cases

  Convicted

  Cases

  1998

  3

  A, B, C

  3

  C, E, G

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1999

  —

  —

  1

  B

  2

  B, C

  2

  B, C

  2000

  2

  F, H

  2

  D, I

  1

  F

  1

  F

  2001

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  D

  1

  D

  2002

  —

  —

  2

  A, K

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2003

  1

  J

  —

  —

  1

  E

  1

  E

  Information on the amounts of benefit fraud in each case is as follows:

  £

  Case

  Amount Involved

  A

  n/a

  B

  9,000

  C

  32,000

  D

  190,000

  E

  147,000

  F

  700

  G

  12,000

  H

  n/a

  I

  851

  J

  6,000

  K

  1,231

  Budget (Northern Ireland) Order
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the sums are which are referred to under the reference Consultants and Other Fees in the Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 in schedule 1 under the heading Department of Regional Development, broken down by contract. [156470]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have agreed to place the information requested in the House of Commons Library.

  Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the merits of extending the provisions of the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [156938]

  Angela Smith
  The Carers and Direct Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 introduces provisions broadly in line with this Bill in relation to the provision of information, provision of services to carers and the right of a carer to an assessment in his/her own right.

  Additionally carers were identified as a priority group under the former Executive's Promoting Social Inclusion (PSI) programme. An inter-Departmental
  696W

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff in his Department have been(a) suspended, (b) dismissed, (c) prosecuted and (d) convicted for involvement in benefit fraud in each of the last six years; and what the amounts involved were in each of the cases listed. [154544]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information on staff members involved in benefit fraud is as follows:

  group has been established to address the range of issues affecting carers, including training, education and employment. That group will report in April 2004.

  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in relation to the dispute over salaries of civil servants in Northern Ireland. [156118]

  Mr. Pearson
  Extensive negotiations over several months did not result in an agreed pay deal for the 11 Departments of the Northern Ireland Administration this year. Management Side presented an offer worth 3.67 per cent. on 5 November. As this could not be agreed, and Trade Union Side declined to negotiate within the 3.67 per cent. envelope, we took the decision to proceed to pay the award and communicated this to staff and Trade Union Side on 27 November. I have made clear to Trade Union Side that the 3.67 per cent. deal is the maximum that can be paid. We are however open to exploring other reasonable means of resolving the dispute. The latest meeting of the Central Whitley Council between Trade Union and Management Sides took place on Thursday, 19 February, and we have agreed to hold further negotiations as a matter of urgency.

  Members of the NI Civil Service working in the Northern Ireland Office are subject to separate pay negotiations involving three unions: NIPS A, PCS and the PDA. A formal offer of 3 per cent. was made to the Unions but was rejected. NIO are proceeding with payment of the award in March.

  Coroners
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards setting up an inquiry into coroners' matters; and when he expects the inquiry to commence. [154623]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  A fundamental review of Death Certification and Investigation in England. Wales and Northern Ireland was established by the Home Secretary in July 2001 and reported in June 2003.
  697W
  The Northern Ireland Court Service issued a consultation paper on proposals for administrative redesign of the Coroners Service in Northern Ireland on 13 February 2004 inviting comments on a range of proposals to improve and modernise the coroners service.

  Enriched Curriculum Programme
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much of the extra £1.6 million given to education in the Budget will go to the Enriched Curriculum programme. [156166]

  Jane Kennedy
  The £1.6 million allocated to the Department of Education in Budget 2003 will be used to take forward on-going work to support implementation of revised post-primary arrangements. Pilot work on the Enriched Curriculum Programme continues with the support of mainstream budgets.

  Health Services
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost of procedures contracted out by the NHS to the private sector was in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [156320]

  Qualified nurses1

  Unqualified nurses

  Bank nurses2

  Age group

  Headcount

  WTE3

  Headcount

  WTE

  Headcount

  WTE

  25

  823

  792.7

  401

  379.8

  373

  n/a

  25–29

  1,684

  1,603.6

  422

  368.3

  471

  n/a

  30–34

  2,188

  1,900.4

  603

  523.7

  527

  n/a

  35–39

  2,689

  2,184.5

  728

  607.4

  670

  n/a

  40–44

  3,109

  2.541.2

  747

  637.7

  678

  n/a

  45–49

  2,301

  1,925.8

  652

  559.3

  422

  n/a

  50–54

  1,436

  1,212.1

  460

  394.7

  235

  n/a

  55–59

  866

  713.8

  384

  321.0

  140

  n/a

  60–64

  214

  170.4

  143

  114.3

  84

  n/a

  65 +

  11

  8.1

  1

  0.7

  12

  n/a

  Total

  15,321

  13,052.5

  4,541

  3,906.9

  3,612

  n/a

  1Figures for qualified nurses include health visitors, district nurses, midwives, school nurses, community psychiatric nurses, student health visitors, student midwives and other qualified nurses

  2Bank nurses maintain service delivery by covering staffing shortfalls and fluctuating workloads. Due to the variable nature of their employment it is not possible to obtain accurate whole time equivalent data with which to measure their input to the service. Some nurses, midwives and health visitors employed in HPSS organisations may also work in nurse banks—there could therefore be some double counting.

  3Whole Time Equivalent

  Source:

  Human Resource Management System

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the cost of medical negligence in Northern Ireland in 2003–04. [156326]

  Angela Smith
  The 2003–04 budget for Health and Personal Social Services includes £11 million towards the settlement of medical negligence claims.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vacancies there are for speech therapists in Northern Ireland. [156381]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is in the table.
  698W
  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what statistics his Department collects regarding requests for(a) radiological and (b) radiography investigations in Northern Ireland. [156323]

  Angela Smith
  My Department collects the number of requests received for radiological and isotope procedures in radiology, nuclear medicine and medical physics departments in each hospital on a quarterly basis.

  Information on the request category is also collected and is derived from data concerning the type of request, the category of patient and the type of location from which the request emanates.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nurses are employed in Northern Ireland, broken down by age group. [156325]

  Angela Smith
  Figures for nurses employed within HPSS organisations as at 31 December 2003 are given in the following table.

  Number of speech therapy vacancies (including long-term vacancies) within all trusts as at 30 September 2003

  Trust

  Headcount

  WTE1

  Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust

  0

  0.0

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  0

  0.0

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  0

  0.0

  Causeway HSS Trust

  1

  1.0

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  0

  0.0

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  0

  0.0

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  1

  1.0

  Foyle Community HSS Trust

  3

  3.0

  Greenpark Healthcare HSS Trust

  0

  0.0

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  6

  N/A

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS Trust

  0

  0.0

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  0

  0.0

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  6

  4.0

  Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  0

  0.0

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  0

  0.0

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  2

  2.0

  699W

  Number of speech therapy vacancies (including long-term vacancies) within all trusts as at 30 September 2003

  Trust

  Headcount

  WTE1

  Ulster Community and Hospital Group HSS Trust

  1

  1.0

  United Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  0

  0.0

  Total

  20

  212.0

  1Whole time equivalent.

  2Figure does not include Homefirst Community HSS Trust.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding was provided in each of the last three years for people in Northern Ireland with(a) severe and (b) moderate learning disabilities. [156383]

  Angela Smith
  Funding for Learning Disability services in each of the last three years is detailed as follows.

  Learning Disability Programme of Care

  £

  2000–01

  100,514,349

  2001–02

  102,507,948

  2002–3

  136,357.436

  It is not possible to disaggregate expenditure for people with severe or moderate learning disabilities.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding was provided in each of the last three years for people in Northern Ireland with autistic spectrum disorders. [156384]

  Angela Smith
  It is not possible to provide the information in the format requested. Funding for autistic spectrum disorders falls within the learning disability programme of care.

  Funding for the last three years is detailed in the table.

  Learning Disability Programme of Care

  £

  2000–01

  100,514,349

  2001–02

  102,507,948

  2002–03

  136,357,436

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 944W, on the new maternity hospital, what factors underlie the slippage in the expected dates for (a) presentation of a business case and (b) commencement of building of the new regional maternity hospital. [156440]

  Angela Smith
  The original project was a stand alone maternity hospital on the Royal Group of Hospitals site. Since the original announcement, in order to ensure the delivery of the best possible facilities, work has been undertaken to explore opportunities for the development of an integrated mother and child hospital with a single entrance. The development of this integrated model has resulted in an extension of the initial planning time required.

  The new regional maternity hospital remains to be completed by 2010. The delay in initiating construction is due to this additional planning, including the need for a complex series of construction, decant, and demolition
  700W
  projects across the entire strategic redevelopment programme which is designed to ensure that disruption to services across the Trust is kept to a minimum.

  Housing
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many units in the ownership of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive are(a) void and (b) empty due to their state of disrepair; and how many are deemed unfit for human habitation; and if he will make a statement. [156217]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is not available in the precise format requested as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive does not draw a distinction between void and empty property. Instead the Housing Executive categorises vacant properties as:Lettable
  Generally short-term vacancies usually in the process of being reallocated.
  Operational voids
  Generally dwellings which are deliberately being held vacant to facilitate planned improvements or open market sale.
  Long term voids
  Generally dwellings which are difficult to let due to lack of demand and includes properties blocked up to prevent vandalism, blocked up as a result of vandalism and fire damaged dwellings.
  Pending demolition
  Houses to be demolished either because they are designated surplus to requirement or to facilitate redevelopment.

  The information as at January 2004 was as follows:

  Number of units

  Lettable

  55

  Operational

  2,650

  Long term

  1,280

  Pending demolition

  1,782

  Total

  5,767

  The 2001 House Condition Survey identified an estimated 3,000 Housing Executive properties which were deemed unfit for human habitation.

  The Housing Executive endeavours to balance the need for letting stock as quickly as possible against operational requirements and, under the common housing selection scheme, providing its tenants with a choice in where they wish to live.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many houses in the ownership of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive were(a) void and (b) empty in each of the past 12 months; what the average time was that the properties remained unallocated to tenants; and if he will make a statement. [156218]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Housing Executive does not draw a distinction between void and empty property. The following table sets out the number of vacant Housing Executive dwellings for the 12 month period February 2003 to January 2004.
  701W

  Month

  Lettable1

  Operational2

  Long term3

  Undergoing redevelopment/pending demolition4

  Total

  February 2003

  65

  2,614

  1,280

  2,233

  6,252

  March 2003

  63

  2,667

  1,232

  2,306

  6,268

  April 2003

  116

  2,701

  1,331

  2,309

  6,457

  May 2003

  96

  2,689

  1,295

  2,326

  6,406

  June 2003

  95

  2,659

  1,316

  2,345

  6,415

  July 2003

  98

  2,685

  1,305

  2,315

  6,403

  August 2003

  90

  2,747

  1,277

  2,246

  6,360

  September 2003

  56

  2,678

  1,200

  2,107

  6,041

  October 2003

  91

  2,807

  1,251

  2.079

  6,228

  November 2003

  76

  2,714

  1,231

  1,863

  5,884

  December 2003

  102

  2,691

  1,286

  1,841

  5,920

  January 2004

  55

  2,650

  1,280

  1,782

  5,767

  1 Lettable—generally short-term vacancies usually in the process of being re-allocated.

  2 Operational voids—generally dwellings which are deliberately being held vacant to facilitate planned improvements or open market sale.

  3 Long term voids—generally dwellings which are difficult to let due to lack of demand and includes properties blocked up to prevent vandalism, blocked up as a result of vandalism and fire damaged dwellings.

  4 Pending demolition—houses to be demolished either because they are designated surplus to requirement or to facilitate redevelopment.

  The information for the last 12 months regarding the time these properties remain unoccupied is not routinely kept but is complied from time to time for special exercises. This information was last complied for the 2001–02 financial year and shows the times as follows:
  Lettable voids—10.8 days (95 per cent. of all lettable stock are allocated in two weeks).
  Operational voids—89.7 days.
  Long term voids—111.7 days.

  As part of the management of its housing stock the Housing Executive must balance the need for letting stock as quickly as possible against operational requirements and, under the common housing selection scheme, providing its tenants with a choice in where they wish to live.

  Local Management of Schools
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to revise the formula for funding Local Management of Schools. [156968]

  Jane Kennedy
  The current arrangements for the funding of schools are being reviewed in the context of developing a Common Funding Scheme.

  New Hospitals
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the(a) value and (b) number of new hospitals built in Northern Ireland is in the last five years for which records are available. [156958]

  Angela Smith
  One new hospital, the Causeway Hospital, has been built in the past five years. The Causeway Hospital was completed in 2001 at a cost of some £52 million, including equipment.

  Obesity
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the percentage of(a) adults and (b) children in Northern Ireland that were obese in each of the last three years. [156117]
  702W
  Angela Smith
  The 1997 Northern Ireland Health and Social Wellbeing Survey provides the most recent estimate of obesity in adults aged 16+. This survey found that 17 per cent. of men and 20 per cent. of women (19 per cent. overall) were obese.

  There is no estimate available on obesity levels in children.

  Organs Inquiry Line
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the(a) Organs Inquiry Line and (b) Relatives Reference Group will close in November 2004. [154624]

  Angela Smith
  The Department's Human Organs Inquiry Line was launched in November 2002 in compliance with the recommendations of the Human Organs Inquiry, which the then Minister had accepted in full. In a leaflet issued to all householders last year the public were asked to note"that this telephone enquiry line and your opportunity to reclaim organs and tissue samples currently in storage will no longer be available after November 2004."

  This remains the position.

  The Relatives' Reference Group was established by the then Minister in March 2001 at the same time as the Human Organs Inquiry. Its Terms of Reference were reviewed in July 2002 and its life extended for two years to assist with the implementation of the recommendations of the Human Organs Inquiry. In order to ensure that this role, which includes support for relatives who use the Enquiry Line, is maintained, it is anticipated that the work of the Group will also conclude at the end of 2004.

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Queens University
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the disclosure of uncollated retentions on 23 January by the Royal Group of Hospitals and Queens University. [154622]

  Angela Smith
  In May 2003 the Department's Chief Medical Officer issued guidance to all hospitals and universities on the use of human organs and tissue, which gave specific instructions about record keeping
  703W
  and archives. It has since been brought to the attention of the Department that the details of tissue blocks and slides relating to 310 cases at Queen's University and the Royal Hospitals had not been included on their main reference lists, although their existence had been disclosed. These lists are used to advise relatives whether any material has been retained from post mortem examinations.

  This matter has been investigated very thoroughly and it is clear that no whole organs are involved and that no new blocks and slides have come to light that were not known about before. The problem was due to administrative error rather than any attempt to conceal information.

  Details of the 310 cases have been checked against all inquiries received by both the institutions involved and the departmental telephone inquiry line. In only two cases did blocks and slides relate to families that had previously made inquiries. Both families have been advised of the additional information. The error is deeply regretted and both institutions have apologised to the families concerned for any distress caused.

  New procedures have been, and continue to be, developed and the Human Tissue Bill now before Parliament includes a rigorous system of inspection and regulation. It is considered that this is an isolated episode which should not recur, but the Department has written to all hospital trusts and universities to draw their attention to this matter.

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the Department of Education's policy is on support and funding for the special needs education of young people who have been statemented. [156167]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs, issued by the Department in 1998, gives detailed practical guidance to schools and Education and Library Boards (ELBs) on how to identify, assess and, where appropriate, statement children with special educational needs.

  Each Education and Library Board is responsible for Statements of Special Educational Needs for pupils resident in its area. The Board will meet the costs associated with the educational provision in Statements for pupils in maintained and controlled (including controlled integrated) schools. The cost of educational provision outlined in Statements for children in grant—maintained integrated (GMI) schools and voluntary grammar schools is met by the Department, because it has direct funding responsibility for these schools.

  State Benefits
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were in receipt of state benefits in Northern Ireland at 1 February, broken down by benefit. [156941]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested for 1 February 2004 is not available. The most up to date information is shown in the following table.
  704W

  Benefit statistics

  Benefit type

  Date

  Number of recipients

  Income Support

  August 2003

  181,580

  Job Seeker's Allowance

  August 2003

  33.795

  Incapacity Benefit

  August 2003

  72,208

  Attendance Allowance

  November 2003

  65,404

  Disability Living Allowance

  November 2003

  155.295

  Carers Allowance

  November 2003

  38,967

  Carers Allowance

  November 2003

  38,967

  Housing Benefit

  August 2003

  126,814

  Retirement Pension

  March 2003

  248.564

  Widow's Benefit

  March 2003

  6,003

  Bereavement Benefit

  March 2003

  1,350

  Vehicle Certificates
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what proportion of vehicles being used on roads in Northern Ireland do not have a valid test certificate; and if he will make a statement. [156524]

  Angela Smith
  The Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency carried out a survey in May 2003 using data from the 2002 analysis of vehicle excise duty evasion. The survey indicated that 28.4 per cent. of eligible vehicles did not have valid MOT certificates at the date of sighting. It was estimated that this equated to 150,000 vehicles.

  The Agency is developing a range of measures to increase MOT compliance. These include the implementation in January 2004 of a new telephone booking service, to make it easier for customers to book and pay for tests; the introduction from March 2004 of MOT reminders; the introduction of internet booking by December 2004; and the use of MOT discs, which are now being issued to motorists for display on car windscreens and which will become mandatory in 2005.

  Vehicle Testing
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost of the vehicle testing service in Northern Ireland was in the last year for which figures are available; and how much of the cost was offset by the receipt of fees. [156530]

  Angela Smith
  The cost of providing the vehicle testing service in Northern Ireland in the 2002—03 financial year was £13.4 million. These costs were offset in full from test fee income.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average waiting time for an appointment for a vehicle test in Northern Ireland was in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement [156531]

  Angela Smith
  The average waiting time for an appointment in 2002–03, the last full year for which figures are available, was 20 days against a target of 21 days.

  The average waiting time is currently 18 days, against the same target. However, the average waiting time for the current year to dale is 30 days. This reflects the fact that the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency experienced a period of high demand earlier in the year, caused

  705W
  partly by measures aimed at reducing the level of motor tax evasion, at a time when it was undergoing a rolling programme of test centre closures for the installation of new equipment.

  It is unlikely that that waiting time target for the year as a whole will be met. However, waiting times are now well within target and I expect this positive position to be maintained.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will privatise vehicle testing in Northern Ireland in line with the practice elsewhere in the United Kingdom. [156532]

  Angela Smith
  Vehicle tests are carried out exclusively in Northern Ireland by the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency of the Department of the Environment. There are no arrangements to allow private garages in Northern Ireland to carry out MOT tests on private cars, as is the practice in Great Britain.

  Following the recent programme to refurbish and re-equip the Agency's 15 test centres, under a private finance initiative contract, and completion of a project to introduce telephone booking, the Agency has restored its previously high levels of performance and customer service.

  I believe these arrangements best suit the circumstances in Northern Ireland and at present I have no plans to review them.

  Waste Paper Recycling
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether all Government Departments in Northern Ireland are contributing to the waste paper recycling contract with SCL Waste Services Ltd.; and how much paper was recycled under this contract in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [156164]

  Mr. Pearson
  All Government Departments utilise the current waste paper disposal contract with SCL Waste Services Ltd. The term "waste paper" covers all paper products including newspapers, magazines, pamphlets and file covers. The volumes of waste paper recycled under this contract were:

  Tonnes

  2001–02

  1,076

  2002–03

  1,143

TREASURY

  Compliance Performance Targets
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 26 January 2004,Official Report, column 110W, on compliance performance targets, how much of the £4.25 billion to £4.75 billion compliance forecast for the Inland Revenue for 1998–99 referred to in the Inland Revenue Annual Report for that year was founded upon the anticipated performance of (a) the Large Business Office and (b) International Division; and what the equivalent planning figures were for each year since 1997–98. [156617]
  706W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  Cancer
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cancer deaths there were(a) in 2003 and (b) in 1974 from (i) breast cancer, (ii) testicular cancer, (iii) bowel cancer, (iv) Hodgkin's disease and (v) all cancers. [157383]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Iris Robinson, dated 1 March 2004:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many cancer deaths there were in (a) 2003 and (b) 1974 from (i) breast cancer, (ii) testicular cancer, (iii) bowel cancer, (iv) Hodgkin's disease and (v) all cancers.(157383)
  The latest year for which data are available is 2002. The figures requested are shown in the table below for 1974 and 2002.

  Number of deaths from various cancers1, England and Wales,1974 and 20022

  1974

  2002

  Breast cancer

  11,319

  11,557

  Testicular cancer

  239

  60

  Bowel cancer

  16,678

  14,544

  Hodgkin's disease

  748

  251

  All cancer

  121,397

  136,777

  1 Cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Eighth Revision (ICD-8) for 1974, and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) for 2002. The codes used are listed below:

  Breast cancer: ICD-8 174; ICD-10 C50

  Testicular cancer: ICD-8 186; ICD-10 C62

  Bowel cancer: ICD-8 152-154; ICD-10 C17-C21

  Hodgkin's disease: ICD-8 201; ICD-10 C81

  All cancer—ICD-8 140–207; ICD-10 C00-C97.

  Figures coded to different revisions of the ICD are not completely comparable.

  2 Figures are based on deaths registered in 1974 and deaths occurring in 2002.

  Cancer trends in Northern Ireland are monitored by the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry whose website address is: http://www.qub.ac.uk/nicr/intro.htm

  Counterfeiting
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been arrested for producing counterfeit £1 coins. [156985]

  Ruth Kelly
  This is a matter for the law enforcement agencies and not for the Treasury or the Royal Mint. However, the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) has recently informed us that 63 persons were arrested for counterfeit coin possession and production in England and Wales since 1997.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional security measures are being considered for new batches of £1 coins to tackle problems of counterfeit coins. [156986]
  707W
  Ruth Kelly
  The only effective option would be to introduce a new £1 coin. However, at present, given the very low incidence of counterfeit £1 coins by international monetary standards, it would not present a good value for money case to replace the existing coin.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department has identified the source or sources of counterfeit £1 coins. [156987]

  Ruth Kelly
  This is a matter for the law enforcement agencies and not for the Treasury or the Royal Mint.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he has given to businesses to help them identify counterfeit £1 coins. [156988]

  Ruth Kelly
  As far as HM Treasury and the Royal Mint are aware, there is no evidence to suggest that businesses would benefit from Government advice on how to identify counterfeits.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to reduce the number of counterfeit £1 coins in circulation. [156989]

  Ruth Kelly
  The only effective action HM Treasury and the Royal Mint could take is to replace the £1 coin. Any level of counterfeiting must be a matter of concern but, given the Royal Mint's recent estimate of the incidence of £1 counterfeit coins to be less than 1 per cent. and anecdotal evidence from cash handlers suggesting a figure even less than this, this is considered to be well within the level generally tolerated by monetary authorities across the world and does not provide a value for money case for replacing the £1 coin.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the number of counterfeit £1 coins in circulation in the UK. [156990]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Royal Mint conducts annual surveys to establish the incidence of £1 counterfeit coins. The most recent survey in December 2003 indicated a counterfeit rate of just under 1 per cent.—almost identical to the previous year's results. Anecdotal evidence from cash handlers suggests that the real level of counterfeits may be substantially lower.

  Employment (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are(a) employed and (b) self employed in (i) Lancashire and (ii) Chorley; and what percentage are sole traders. [157091]

  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. Lindsay Hoyle, dated 1 March 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about employment and self-employment. (157091)
  The attached table gives estimates of the number of people employed and self-employed and the percentage of self-employed people who are sole traders in Lancashire and Chorley. Estimates are taken from the ONS Labour Force Survey (LFS), for the three month period ending November 2003.
  708W
  As with any statistical sample survey, estimates for the LFS are subject to sampling variability.

  Number of employed and self employed people1, and percentages of self-employed people who are sole traders2 in Lancashire and Chorley: September to November 2003

  Lancashire

  Charley

  All people in employment3

  564,000

  47,000

  Of these, number who are:

  Employees

  491,000

  39,000

  Self employed

  69,000

  4—

  Sole traders2

  45,000

  4—

  Sole traders as a percentage of

  self-employed

  64.7

  4—

  1 People aged 16 and over

  2 Self employed with no employees.

  3 Includes employees, the self employed, unpaid family workers and people on Government employment and training programmes

  4 Sample size too small for reliable estimate

  Source:

  ONS-Labour Force Survey (Estimates are not seasonally adjusted and have not been interim-adjusted to reflect 2001 Census results)

  Environmental Taxation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that(a) financial and (b) fiscal (i) incentives and (ii) disincentives for waste management encourage delivery of the Government's waste hierarchy. [156344]

  John Healey
  Through the use of the landfill tax, spending programmes. regulation and other economic instruments such as the landfill allowance trading scheme, the Government incentivises efforts to minimise the amount of waste generated and encourage sustainable waste disposal and waste management techniques.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the environmental benefits that would be derived from a tax on incineration; and if he will make a statement. [156345]

  John Healey
  The Government have commissioned a review of the evidence of health and environmental effects of different waste management options, and the case for economic instruments for waste management will be considered in light of this review.

  European Constitution (UK Budget Abatement)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what procedure in Article I-53(4) of the draft Constitution for Europe the UK budget abatement would be determined. [157100]

  Ruth Kelly
  Article I-53(4) of the draft Constitution covers the modalities of the Own Resources system that determines how the European Union budget is to be financed. The draft text provides for any new Own Resources Decision to be determined by qualified majority voting in the Council and consent of the European Parliament The Government made clear in the White Paper on the Constitutional Treaty [Cm 5934] that it will insist on preserving arrangements which ensure that revenues remain a matter for member states, and decisions on them subject to unanimity and national ratification.
  709W

  Excise Revenue
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the yield in excise revenue from ready-to-drink products was in(a)2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and what the estimated yield is for (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [157602]

  John Healey
  Excise revenue from wine-based ready-to-drink products can be found in the HM Customs and Excise Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03 (HC52), and is shown in the following table.

  Excise revenue from wine based ready-to. drink (RTD) products

  £ million

  Wine-based RTDs

  Spirits-based RTDs

  2001–02

  236

  2002–03

  67

  not available

  Until 27 April 2002 duty was levied on ready-to-drink products at the 'made wine coolers' rate. Since 28 April 2002 most ready-to-drink products have been taxed at the spirits (per litre of alcohol) rate. Revenue data are not separately available and are incorporated within the total for 'other spirits'. Information on the estimated yield for 2003–04 and 2004–05 ready-to-drink products is not available. The estimated yield for ready-to-drink products is incorporated in forecasts for wine and spirits that are published annually in the pre-Budget Report and the Financial Statement and budget Report.

  International Finance Facility
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the countries which have indicated support for the International Finance Facility; and which of these countries he expects to attend the Paris Conference in April. [157561]

  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with international finance ministers on the International Finance Facility. [158128]

  John Healey
  At the Dubai Annual Meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in September 2003, the International Finance Facility (IFF) proposal received wide support from the international community. The World Bank and IMF were mandated to work on aid effectiveness, aid absorption and financing mechanisms including the IFF, and to report back at the Spring and Annual meetings this year.

  At the meeting of G7 Finance Ministers at Boca Raton, Florida last month. Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to help countries achieve the Millennium Development Goals through work on aid effectiveness, aid absorption and financing mechanisms including the International Finance Facility (IFF). This meeting built on the Annual Meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Dubai in September 2003, where the World Bank and the IMF were mandated to do work on the IFF proposal, and to report back at the Spring and Annual meetings this year. In the same month the Commonwealth Finance Ministers welcomed further work on the IFF initiative.
  710W
  The Dubai meetings also called for consultation of emerging markets and developing countries on the IFF proposal. As part of this consultation process, Francis Mer, the French Finance Minister, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will jointly host a Ministerial Conference on Financing for Development in Paris on 8 April. This conference will bring together Finance and International Development Ministers from over 60 emerging market, developing and donor countries to discuss the case for increased aid and the IFF. Invitations have been issued to members of OECD/DAC, the G20, the IMF Committee and World Bank Development Committee, as well as countries acceding to the ED and representatives from Africa and the Asia-Europe meeting (ASEM). Representatives from multilateral agencies, NGOs and academics have also been invited.

  Discussion of the IFF proposal will continue at the Spring Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF, where the Chancellor will chair the IMF Committee.

  Large Business Office
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 12 February 2004,Official Report, column 1556W on the Large Business Office, when (a) Sir Nicholas Montagu KCB, (b) Mr. David Hartnett CB, (c) Mr. Steve Heminsley and (d) Mr. John Yard were informed of the audit performed by the Inland Revenue's internal auditors upon the accuracy of the reported compliance data of the Large Business Office for 2001–02. [156616]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The normal procedures for informing IR senior management of issues were followed.

  The Deputy Chairman responsible for the Large Business Office was informed at the commissioning of the audit in April 2002. She was advised over progress in her monthly meetings with the Director and in the relevant quarterly narratives made by the Director during 2002.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the grounds were for changing his policy on the level of support for liquefied petroleum gas; and if he will make a statement; [157165]

  (2) what taxation policies he plans to bridge the time gap between the current subsidy of green road fuels and future development of compressed natural gas and hydrogen; [157166]

  (3) what policies he is considering to address fuel poverty (a) in remote and rural areas and (b) for disabled drivers who use liquefied petroleum gas; [157167]

  (4) if he will make it his policy to compensate people who have converted their vehicles to run on liquefied petroleum gas for the removal of taxation support for liquefied petroleum gas. [157451]

  John Healey
  In the last pre-Budget report (Cm6042) the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an Alternative Fuels Framework, which sets out the rationale for Government support for alternative fuels, and places environmental benefits at its core. In recognition of the importance to investors of providing
  711W
  long-term certainty in the market, the framework includes an unprecedented commitment to a three-year rolling guarantee on the fuel duty differentials for all alternative fuels.

  The UK offers the biggest duty incentive for road fuel gases, including liquefied petroleum gas, in Europe. This incentive cost the Exchequer £75 million in duty forgone in 2002–03 alone. The Government also give valuable support to this sector through grants for vehicle conversions (the Powershift scheme), reduced rates of vehicle excise duty for gas powered vehicles, and company car tax reliefs.

  Fuel duty rates are being considered as part of the Budget process, taking account of all relevant economic, social and environmental factors including the likely impacts on different population groups.

  Lung Cancer
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the five year survival rate for lung cancer was(a) in each year between 1993 and 1996 and (b) in the most recent period for which figures are available. [156380]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Iris Robinson, dated 1 March 2004:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning five years survival rate for lung cancer (a) in each year between 1993 and 1996 and (b) in the most recent period for which figures are available.(156380)
  Figures for the UK as a whole are not available. Figures are available for each of the component countries of the UK, but these are not directly comparable because of differences in coverage and other reasons.
  The latest available lung cancer survival figures for adult patients in England and Wales, diagnosed during 1991–99 and followed up to 31 December 2001, are given in the table below. Survival figures are not published by single year of diagnosis.

  Five-year age-standardised relative survival rates (percentage) for adult patients (aged 15 to 99 years) diagnosed with lung cancer during 1991–95 and 1996–99, England and Wales

  1991–95

  1996–991

  Number of patients2

  Survival(percentage)

  Number of patients2

  Survival(percentage)

  Men

  95,903

  5.2

  67,862

  5.8

  Women

  48,151

  5.4

  39,455

  6.4

  1 Five years' potential follow-up was only available for those diagnosed in 1996, but the most up-to-date estimates for shorter-term survival probabilities were used for patients diagnosed in later years (complete analysis).

  2 Eligible patients included in the survival analysis; criteria for excluding records, for example where the registration is of a second (different) primary cancer, are given in Health Statistics Quarterly 2000;6: 71–80. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/HSQ6Book.pdf

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Figures for Northern Ireland are published in Fitzpatrick DA, Gavin AT. Survival of Cancer Patients in Northern Ireland 1993–1996. Belfast: Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, 2001' and are available on the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry website: http://www.qub.ac.uk/nicr/intro.htm 712W

  N2+2 Consultation Document
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to publish his consultative document on N2+2. [157398]

  Ruth Kelly
  My written statement to Parliament of 4 November 2003 on the two year review of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 said that the Treasury would consult publicly on proposals for legislative change. We have issued two public consultation documents: on 26 January 2004 "Informal capital raising and high net worth and sophisticated investors: a consultation document on proposed changes to the Financial Promotion Order", and on 27 February 2004 "Financial Services and Markets Act two year review: changes to secondary legislation".

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the buildings owned by the Office for National Statistics, broken down by(a) purpose and (b) value; and if he will make a statement. [156762]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Laws, dated 1 March 2004

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the buildings owned by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), broken down by (a) purpose and (b) value.

  The value and purpose of Office for National Statistics (ONS) buildings are as follows:

  £ million

  Site

  Purpose

  Building value

  Land value

  Southport, Merseyside

  Office

  3.166

  1.071

  Christchurch, Dorset

  Store

  1.323

  0.811

  Titchfield. Hampshire

  Office

  5.658

  1.946

  Newport, South Wales

  Office

  7.408

  3.268

  Note:

  These building were valued in 2000 by GVA Grimly, a firm providing estates and valuation services, in accordance with established professional standards. These valuations are adjusted annually using Treasury indices, and are shown for the Financial Year 2002–04.

  Data for the buildings occupied in London by ONS at Drummond Gate and Bessborough Tower, Pimlico and the Family Records Centre, Islington are not included in this table as they are leased, and not owned by the ONS.

  Refurbishment works carried out by ONS on its leased properties in Pimlico were capitalised, and their written-down value at 31 March 2003 was £22.946 million. The value of these works is not shown in the above table. but was included in an estimate of the total value of ONS buildings given in answers to a previous Written Question on this subject (Official Report, 22 January 2003, column 417W).

  The General Register Office (GRO) is part of ONS, and is responsible for the registration of births. marriages and deaths in England and Wales. It operates from the ONS sites in Southport, Merseyside and Islington London.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of spending on the Office for National Statistics for each year from 1997–98 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [156763]
  713W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. David Laws, dated 1 March 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning spending on the Office for National Statistics for each year from 1997–98 to 2005–06. I am replying in his absence.

  The requested information is shown tn the attached table. The figures shown include expenditure on the General Register Office, part of the Office for National Statistics, which is responsible for administering the system for registering births, marriages and deaths in England and Wales.

  Expenditure on the Office for National Statistics, 1997–98 to 2005–06

  Financial year

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1997–98

  97.8

  1998–99

  101.6

  1999–2000

  108.4

  2000–01

  154.7

  2001–02

  209.9

  2002–03

  147.5

  2003–041

  155.0

  2004–051

  177.0

  2005–061

  191.0

  1 Figures for 2003–04 onwards are for planned expenditure, as published in Table 1 of the ONS Spring 2003 Departmental Report (Cm 5931)

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure is calculated as the total of the net resource budget and the capital budget.

  2. Figures from 1998–99 to 2002–03 include additional provision for planning, fieldwork and initial processing of the 2001 Census of Population in England and Wales. The period of peak expenditure on the Census occurred between 2000 and 2002.

  3. Figures from 2003–04 onwards include additional provision from the government Spending Review settlement of 2002, for ONS to invest in a programme of modernisation to enhance our systems and processes. A total of £75 million has been provided for this purpose over the three years from 2003–04.

  Primates
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many primates were imported illegally and seized by customs in each of the last five years. [156552]

  John Healey
  The table lists seizures of live primates for the calendar years 1998–2002, the last five complete years for which figures are available.

  Number seized

  1998

  1

  1999

  12

  2000

  3

  2001

  0

  2002

  0

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask he Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) value and (b) number of all Private Finance Initiative and Public Private Partnership projects for which contracts have been signed is in (i) each of the regions of England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Northern Ireland and (iv) Wales. [156964]
  714W
  Mr. Boateng
  A full list of PFI projects signed up to July 2003 is available from the PFI statistics section of the HM Treasury website at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/documents/public_private_partnerships/ppp_pfi_stats.cfm.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) public finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects have been rejected in each of the last three years, broken down by (c) value and (d) project type. [157694]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on potential PFI and PPP projects that have been rejected by public bodies is not held centrally. Information on the value and type of PFI and PPP projects rejected by public bodies in each of the last three years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Profitability
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses are sampled to calculate figures for The Profitability of UK Companies; and what proportion of these have a turnover of(a) less than £1 million, (b) £1–20 million, (c) £20–50 million, (d) £50–100 million and (e) more than £100 million. [1572191

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Stephen O'Brien, dated 1 March 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question on how many businesses are sampled to calculate figures for The Profitability of UK Companies; and what proportion of these have a turnover of: (a) less than £1 million; (b) £1–20 million; (c) £20–50 million; (d) £50–100 million and (e) more than £100 million. I am replying in his absence. (157219)

  The data published in the First Release Profitability of UK Companies' is from annual benchmark data based on tax returns provided by the Inland Revenue two years in arrears. Growth rates derived from the Quarterly Profit Inquiry are then applied to this data with the results reported in the above release.

  The number of companies sampled for the Quarterly Profits Inquiry for the fourth quarter of 2003 was 1,607. Of these for the year 2002:
  5.8 per cent. had a turnover of less than £1 million;
  35.5 per cent. had a turnover of between £1 million and £19,999,999;
  11.3 per cent. had a turnover of between £20 million and £49,999,999;
  8.9 per cent. had a turnover of between £50 million and £99,999,999;
  38.5 per cent. had a turnover of over £100 million.

  The sample selection for the Quarterly Profit Inquiry is based on number of employees and normally consists of between sixteen hundred and seventeen hundred companies. Respondents are not asked to supply data on turnover for the Quarterly Profits Inquiry but information on this can be obtained from the Inter Departmental Business Register.

  Rebated Fuel Use Fraud
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated cost was to the Treasury of fraudulent rebated fuel use in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [156997]
  715W
  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 13 January 2004,Official Report, column 635W.

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost savings to public funds from increasing the normal retirement age to 65 for all recipients of public sector pensions; and if he will make a statement. [156578]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is too early to provide an estimate of the overall effects of work to review and modernise the benefit structure of public service pension schemes, of which the pension age is one strand.

  Small/Medium Sized Businesses
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of those in employment work in small and medium sized businesses. [157502]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Joan Humble, dated 1 March 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning what percentage of those in employment work in small and medium sized businesses. (157502)

  The latest available information is published in the National Statistics bulletin "Small and Medium Enterprise Statistics in the UK for 2002" which shows that 47.6% of those in employment work in small and medium businesses. A small business is one with fewer than 50 employees and a medium business has 50–249 employees.

  The bulletin is available free of change on the following website: http://www.sbs.goy.uk/content/statistics/tablessmestats.pdf

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to public funds would be of abolishing stamp duty on share transactions. [157574]

  Ruth Kelly
  The 2003 pre-Budget forecast of revenue from duty on transactions in shares, and hence the direct yield cost of abolition, is £3.3 billion for 2004—05. This estimate makes no allowance for the effect on other taxes arising from the wider impact abolition may have on the economy.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the letter of 2 December 2003 from the Paymaster General to the hon. Member for Northavon, on tax credits compensation, if he will list the(a) compensation claims submitted and (b) compensation payments made. [147990]

  Dawn Primarolo
  At 27 February, approximately 7,200 claims for compensation had been upheld. This represents about one twelfth of a per cent. of all claims received for tax credit awards. Approximately 255 claims had been considered and not upheld by that date.
  716W

  Whisky Industry
  John Thurso
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he had with representatives of the Scottish whisky industry in(a) 2001, (b)(c) 2003 and (d) 2004; and what plans he has to meet them in the future. [156770]

  John Healey
  Treasury Ministers meet a wide range of organisations, companies and individuals, including representatives of the Scottish whisky industry, as part of the process of policy development and analysis. As with previous Administrations, it is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Age Discrimination
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he plans to take to reduce age discrimination in the workplace in the next two years. [156080]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government are committed to tackling age discrimination in employment, extending opportunities for older workers and to introducing age discrimination legislation in 2006. The Government are assessing the responses to the consultation last year on proposals for the age legislation and will consult from this spring on draft age regulations covering employment and vocational training. The legislation will be in place, but not implemented, by the end of 2004, to give employers and individuals about two years to prepare before the legislation comes into force on 1 October 2006. Over the coming year, we will prepare further practical guidance for employers on adopting age positive practices and flexible approaches to retirement.

  In the meantime our Age Positive campaign is encouraging employers to adopt non-ageist employment practices now. Through Age Positive, we are promoting the business benefits of an age diverse workforce by encouraging employers to adopt the voluntary Code of Practice: 'Age' Diversity at Work, A Practical Guide For Business, which was first developed in 1998 and updated in 2002. Over 750,000 copies of the Age Positive Code have been issued to employers and individuals and it is available on the Age Positive website www.agepositive.gov.uk, which has 75,000 visits per month.

  The Age Positive campaign is widely promoted to employers and individuals through advertising, the website and press features in national, local and specialist publications and at exhibitions and workshops for employers. Age Positive awards help to further publicise the achievements of businesses and individuals who conquer age prejudice.

  Age Positive also works closely with organisations such the Federation of Small Businesses, Employers Forum on Age, Institute of Directors, TUC, CBI and Age Concern.
  717W

  Department Branding
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department and its predecessors spent on branding the Department between 1997–98 and 2003–04, broken down by(a) consultancy fees, (b) design and orders for new stationery, (c) website design and (d) other material featuring new logos. [15074]

  Maria Eagle
  Between the years 1997–98 and 2003–04, the predominant expenditure was the introduction of the new Department for Work and Pensions brand in 2001. The cost relating to this has been:

  consultancy: £244,792

  design of new stationery: £10,3691

  costs of generating web elements: £52,643

  other items featuring the new logo (such as the design of signage) was: £11,6632

  1The new brand was added to most other items, such as forms and stationery, during their normal updating process with existing stocks used up prior to issue.2Signage changes for offices were made in accordance with the expectations of a machinery of government change.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will list the pension funds that have been wound-up leaving inadequate resources to cover pension liabilities since Royal Assent to the Pensions Act 1996; [157839]

  (2) which pension fund for which he has records was the first to go into wind-up with inadequate funds to meet its liabilities. [157840]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are unable to provide this information. The only source of information on winding up schemes is the Pensions Schemes Registry which is administered by the Occupational Pension Schemes Regulatory Authority (OPRA). The information on windups on this database is limited and does not contain data on schemes assets and liabilities.

  Poverty
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many children in each London borough were reported to be living in poverty in each year since 1995. [157280]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on 8 January 2004,Official Report, column 462W.

HEALTH

  Allergy
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS hospitals have special allergy units to deal with more severe cases of allergy. [156247]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) and the British Allergy Foundation (BAF) compiled a list of National Health 718W
  Service allergy clinics in 2000 which are NHS consultant-led and based at NHS hospitals throughout the United Kingdom. The subsequent BSACI handbook, "National Health Service Allergy Clinics",published in 2001, lists 86 such clinics. There were an additional 15 clinics run by NHS consultants, who were non BSACI members, identified by the BAF.

  Six of these 101 clinics offer services led by a whole-time specialist allergist. These are based in London (Guy's hospital, Royal Brompton hospital and St. Mary's hospital), Cambridge, Southampton and Leicester. These centres have expertise in all types of allergic disease, including the complex problems, and provide a comprehensive high-quality allergy service with a multidisciplinary approach.

  Asbestos (Drinking Water)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the health impact of asbestos in drinking water. [155787]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality published in 1993 by the World Health Organization (the WHO Guidelines) concluded that:"There is … no consistent evidence that ingested asbestos is hazardous to health and thus it was concluded that there was no need to establish a health-based guideline value for asbestos in drinking-water."

  Asbestos released from drinking-water to air does not appear to contribute significantly to exposure to inhaled asbestos, and the WHO Guidelines noted that the fibres which are released are of a form which is considered to pose little health risk.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what quantity of each(a) benzodiazepine and (b) antidepressant was prescribed by doctors in England in each of the last five years. [155156]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the number of prescription items of benzodiazepines and antidepressants that were dispensed in the community in England since 1998 has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on the prescription of benzodiazepines. [155788]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Decisions about prescribing are the responsibility of the doctor, taking account of the patient's symptoms. the evidence base and national guidance.

  Guidance based on the advice issued by the Committee on Safety of Medicines in 1988 has been made available to all health authorities in the "Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Benzodiazepine Dependence" (Mental Health Foundation, 1994). Further guidance for prescribers is incorporated in the "Drug Misuse and Dependence—Guidelines on Clinical Management" (1999) and the "British National Formulary" (biannual).

  The Department is planning to introduce instalment dispensing of benzodiazepines to minimise access to excessive doses.
  719W

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to conduct a review of cosmetic surgery practice across England. [152572]

  Dr. John Reid
  Ministers announced in early 2002 that there would be a review of the effectiveness of the national minimum standards for the qualifications of cosmetic surgeons in England who were not on the specialist register of the General Medical Council and had been in practice before 1 April 2002.

  In July 2003 the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) submitted to the Chief Medical Officer an anonymised report on the inspections of 22 small cosmetic surgery practices in Inner London, and is in the process of preparing a more comprehensive report on all inspections carried out of cosmetic surgery practices in England. On receipt of this report the Department will consider, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, whether the standards are robust enough to ensure the quality of treatment.

  The London report can be found on the NCSC website at www.carestandards.org.uk.

  Dementia
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of dementia sufferers were diagnosed before the age of 65. [156378]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There is no routine collection of information on the numbers of people diagnosed with dementia. The research quoted by the older people's national service framework in 2001 estimated that approximately 600,000 people in the United Kingdom have dementia, of whom there are about 17,000 people under the age of 65.

  Dentists
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will collect information on the proportion of newly qualified dentists who go into(a) NHS and (b) private practice after training. [152440]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Newly qualified dentists intending to work in National Health Service general dental practice have first to undergo one year's vocational training. The great majority of dentists wish to take advantage of vocational training to enhance their clinical and administrative competence. Of the remainder, some dentists take posts in hospital dental

  Table 1: Average daily number of available beds, mental health sector, 1997–98 to 2001–02

  England

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Trent

  West Midland

  North West

  Eastern

  London

  South East

  South West

  1997–98

  36,601

  5,222

  3,780

  5,030

  3,460

  7,300

  5,160

  3,406

  1998–99

  35,692

  5,120

  3,697

  3,216

  4,748

  3,510

  7,008

  5,014

  3,378

  1999–2000

  34,173

  4.985

  3,592

  3,181

  4,636

  3,461

  6,155

  4,938

  3,225

  2000–01

  34,214

  4,887

  3,754

  3,191

  4,499

  3,471

  6,401

  4,849

  3,163

  2001–02

  32,783

  4,805

  3,561

  3,066

  4,565

  3,457

  6,149

  4,218

  2,962

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH03

  Status:

  Published data

  720W
  departments, some decide to postpone or abandon a career in dentistry and others go directly into dental practices which only accept private patients. We monitor the proportion of newly qualified dentists who do not undertake vocational training.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the buildings owned by his Department; what the latest estimated value of each building is; and if he will make a statement. [156700]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The estimated current value of the Department's administrative estate is approximately £65 million. The estate comprises the following freehold properties as shown in the table.

  £

  Valuation

  Building

  Land

  Buildings

  85 Whitehall

  0.99

  1.75

  79 Whitehall

  14.47

  25.21

  Wellington House, London

  7.23

  15.10

  Premier Mill, Nelson

  0.00

  0.05

  Total

  22.69

  42.11

  Glenfield Hospital
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patient beds have been available in England for patients with(a) mental health conditions and (b) learning disabilities in each year since 1997, broken down by (i) NHS region and (ii) strategic health authority. [154006]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of in-patient beds for patients with mental health conditions or with a learning disability are collected annually from each national health service trust and published at http://www.performance.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/. Prior to 2000–01 this information was also published in "Bed Availability and Occupancy", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Aggregations are included relevant to the NHS organisational structures in place at the time. It is not possible to aggregate these statistics to organisational structures that did not exist at the time. For the period 1997–98 to 2001–02 figures for available beds in the mental health and learning disabilities sectors for each NHS region are shown in table 1 and table 2. For 2002–03 figures for each strategic health authority are shown in table 3.
  721W

  Table 2: Average daily number of available beds, learning disability sector, 1997–98 to 2001–02

  England

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Trent

  West Midland

  North West

  Eastern

  London

  South East

  South West

  1997–98

  8,197

  1,419

  676

  987

  644

  1,375

  569

  1,527

  1,000

  1998–99

  7,491

  1,306

  666

  901

  572

  1,264

  554

  1,415

  813

  1999–00

  6,834

  1,228

  653

  641

  492

  1,175

  554

  1,385

  707

  2000–01

  6,316

  1,207

  730

  718

  414

  974

  488

  1,207

  578

  2001–02

  5,694

  1,180

  692

  674

  402

  794

  461

  1,144

  347

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO3

  Status:

  Published data

  Table 3: Average daily number of available beds, Strategic Health Authorities in England, 2002–03

  Org. ID

  Name

  Mental illness

  Learning disability

  2002–03

  32,753

  5,038

  2002–03

  Q01

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire HA

  1,433

  350

  2002–03

  Q02

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire HA

  982

  166

  2002–03

  Q03

  Essex HA

  998

  242

  2002–03

  Q04

  North West London HA

  1,624

  20

  2002–03

  Q05

  North Central London HA

  1,180

  28

  2002–03

  Q06

  North East London HA

  1,285

  87

  2002–03

  Q07

  South East London HA

  1,385

  23

  2002–03

  Q08

  South West London HA

  846

  0

  2002–03

  Q09

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear HA

  1,421

  437

  2002–03

  Q10

  County Durham and Tees Valley HA

  951

  234

  2002–03

  Q11

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire HA

  676

  130

  2002–03

  Q12

  West Yorkshire HA

  1,535

  263

  2002

  Q13

  Cumbria and Lancashire HA

  1,444

  255

  2002

  Q14

  Greater Manchester HA

  1,644

  17

  2002–03

  Q15

  Cheshire and Merseyside HA

  1,482

  113

  2002–03

  Q16

  Thames Valley HA

  1,061

  98

  2002–03

  Q17

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight HA

  894

  164

  2002–03

  Q18

  Kent and Medway HA

  758

  95

  2002–03

  Q19

  Surrey and Sussex HA

  1,630

  537

  2002–03

  Q20

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire HA

  1,448

  93

  2002–03

  Q21

  South West Peninsula HA

  558

  59

  2002–03

  Q22

  Somerset and Dorset HA

  800

  225

  2002–03

  Q23

  South Yarkshire HA

  981

  133

  2002–03

  Q24

  Trent HA

  1,743

  281

  2002–03

  Q25

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland HA

  1,002

  428

  2002–03

  Q26

  Shropshire and Staffordshire HA

  828

  106

  2002–03

  Q27

  Birmingham and the Black Country HA

  1,446

  255

  2002–03

  Q28

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire HA

  717

  198

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO3

  Status:

  Published

  Flexible Working (Costs)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the cost to NHS trusts of changes to(a) maternity leave, (b) paid paternity and adoption leave and (c) the right of parents of young children to apply to work flexibly which took effect in April 2003. [156061]

  Mr. Hutton [holding answer 27 February 2004]
  This information is not held centrally.

  Group B Streptococcus
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the Green Top Guidelines, from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists(a) reach all parts of maternity care
  722W
  services and (b) will be used to inform each hospital's protocol for preventing group B streptococcus infection in newborn babies; what resources have been allocated to dissemination and education; and if he will make a statement. [156557]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) published its clinical guidelines on the Prevention of Early Onset Neonatal Group B Streptococcal Disease in November 2003. The RCOG clinical guidelines are recommendations for good practice and exist to help patients and their healthcare team make the right decisions about health care. The guidelines are developed by teams of healthcare professionals, patients and scientists who look at the best evidence about care for a particular condition.
  723W
  The Government supports the publication of the guidelines as they will inform local protocol and assist clinicians and patients in making decisions about the appropriate treatment for preventing group B streptococcus infection in newborn babies.

  Resources for dissemination and education are not provided centrally.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he uses to ensure that high quality information about group B streptococcus is given to all pregnant women as a routine part of their antenatal care. [156558]

  Dr. Ladyman
  "The Pregnancy Book", which is given to all first time mothers in the antenatal period is currently being revised to include information about group B streptococcus and contact details of the Group B Strep Support Group.

  We also encourage all women who have any questions or concerns during their pregnancy to speak with their midwife or other health care professionals responsible for their care.

  Health Ombudsman's Report (Long-term Care)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects all the cases of people suspected of wrongly paying for their long-term care following the Health Ombudsman's report on the subject will be(a) reviewed and (b) resolved; and if he will make a statement; [156337]

  (2) how many cases have been reviewed so far following the Health Ombudsman's report suggesting that a number of elderly and disabled people may have wrongly paid for their long-term care; of these, how many wrong assessments have been discovered; what action (a) has been and (b)is to be taken to rectify the wrong assessment cases; and if he will make a statement; [156338]

  (3) what deadlines have been set for the review of long-term care following the Health Ombudsman's report suggesting that a number of elderly and disabled people may have wrongly paid for their long-term care; and if he will make a statement on the progress of the review. [156339]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The deadline for the completion of investigations into care wrongly denied is the end of March 2004. Strategic health authorities are expected to have completed their investigations by then. Figures detailing the number of investigations completed and the number of cases granted recompense will be available after the deadline, once the data has been validated.

  Hospital Readmissions
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of readmission to hospital following discharge was for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [157163]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Readmission rates for the last three years, using the indicator definition for the 2003 performance ratings, are shown in the table. Earlier information is not available.
  724W

  Readmission rates in Acute Trusts, England 2000–02:Emergency, readmission to hospital following discharge(adults aged 16 or over)

  Readmission rate (standardised percentage)

  2000

  5.38

  2001

  5.49

  2002

  5.53

  Lupus
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people in England who have lupus (SLE). [156105]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not held centrally. However, Lupus UK estimates there may be around 40,000 people with lupus in the United Kingdom.

  Malcolm Pointon
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2004,Official Report, column 1410W, on free personal care, what the basis is for the statement that the impact of the Health Service Ombudsman decision in the case of Malcolm Pointon is included in the estimates of the cost of free personal care which were calculated in advance of the Ombudsman's decision. [156693]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The answer of 10 February 2004,Official Report, column 1410W, stated that the decision in the case of Malcolm Pointon is a decision on an individual case and as such has no bearing on national estimates of the cost of free personal care. Therefore, there would be no impact on the estimated costs.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many carers of people with mental illness have received(a) a written assessment and (b) a written copy of the care plan of the person they care for, broken down by mental health trust; [154825]

  (2) what steps he has taken to (a) publicise the rights of mental health carers to an assessment of their own needs and (b) inform local carers' groups of the allocation of the caters grant; and if he will make a statement. [154826]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The national service framework (NSF) for mental health provides rationale and evidence base for a national standard for mental health services relating to carers of people with mental health problems.

  In accordance with the NSF for mental health standard six, all individuals who provide regular and substantial care for a person on the care programme approach should have an assessment of their caring, physical and mental health needs repeated on at least an annual basis. People who provide regular and substantial care for a person on the care programme approach are also entitled to have their own written care plan which is given to them and implemented in discussion with them.
  725W
  The importance of support for carers was further emphasised in the "NHS Plan (2000)" and in the "Priorities and Planning Framework 2003–06" issued to local services.

  Information about the number of carers with a written assessment and the number of carers with a copy of the care plan of the person they care for is not collected centrally.

  The care co-ordinator under the care programme approach should inform users and carers of the carer's right to request an assessment and ensure co-ordination of users' and carers' assessment plans. The Department and the mental health charity Rethink also published a booklet entitled "A Commitment to Carers" which highlights the right to a carer's assessment.

  Local councils are notified annually of their allocations of the carers grant in the local authority social services letter. Details are also published on the Department of Health carers website at www. carers.gov.uk.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether staff working in mental institutions in NHS hospitals(a) complete diversity training before they start their employment and (b) undergo regular diversity training. [155602]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 makes it clear that local services must deliver appropriate training to staff. We reinforce this message in our consultation document "Delivering Race Equality: A Framework for Action."

  The National Institute of Mental Health in England's national workforce programme is developing a set of shared capabilities that all staff should possess as part of their education and training. One of these is to respect diversity and to provide care and interventions in ways that respect and value diversities including age, race, culture, disability, spirituality, gender and sexuality.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued by his Department to mental health trusts regarding control and restraint policies towards patients; and which mental health trusts have adopted these new procedures. [155629]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To assist trusts, in February 2004, the National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE) issued "Developing Positive Practice to Support the Safe and Therapeutic Management of Aggression and Violence in Mental Health In-patient Settings".

  The NIMHE will be developing proposals for a national accreditation and regulation scheme for trainers and programmes of education and training.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will also be publishing guidance later this year relating to management of violence.

  For those detained under section of the Mental Health Act 1983, trusts should follow the guidance laid out in the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice.
  726W
  Section 19.12 of the Code of Practice states that:
  "Any restraint used should:
  be reasonable in the circumstance;
  apply the minimum force necessary to prevent harm to the patient or others;
  be used for only as long as is necessary;
  be sensitive to gender and race issues."

  Trusts should regularly audit their control and restraint procedures consistent with the framework of clinical governance. The management of trust performance is the responsibility of strategic health authorities. Information is not captured centrally about this. However, the Mental Health Act Commission reviews the operations of the Mental Health Act and copies of the commission's biennial report are available from the Stationery Office.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to reorganise mental health trusts; and if he will make a statement. [154444]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has no plans to reorganise mental health trusts.

  Organ Donors
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate the Government have made of the proportion of people who(a) carried organ donor cards and (b) were on the organ donor register in each of the last five years. [156619]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A public attitude research study, commissioned in 2003 by UK Transplant, found that 36 per cent., of people had, or thought they had, an organ donor card. The research was limited to England.

  Not all donor card holders register on the National Health Service organ donor register. Of the total United Kingdom population. the proportion registered at year end over the last five years is as shown in the table.

  Year end

  Percentage of population

  1999

  11.9

  2000

  14.0

  2001

  15.3

  2002

  17.1

  2003

  18.6

  Personal Care Costs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the administration costs to(a) primary care trusts and (b) local authorities were of operating systems for (A) establishing eligibility for free nursing care and (B) means testing for personal care in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will estimate what savings could be made in these costs if personal care was made free for the elderly. [156290]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not available centrally. Administrative cost savings resulting from the introduction of a system of free personal care for the elderly would be marginal, as primary care trusts and local councils would still need to assess the needs of
  727W
  individuals and make payments to care providers. Where accommodation is provided, residents of care homes would still require a test of their means.

  Restructuring/Change Programme
  Mr. David Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the current resources allocations are for(a) social care, (b) preventive health and education and (c) public health; and how they will change as a result of the departmental reorganisation. [153685]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Before the departmental reorganisation, there were 652 whole-time equivalent (WTE) staff working in the social care field (including children, older people, mental health and prison health services) within the Department. Post re-organisation, there will be 140 WTE staff representing the target number of posts planned for the new care services directorate within the Department. The figure also takes into account work transferring to other Government departments or agencies and an expected reduction of 94 WTE posts.

  The departmental reorganisation will see 418 WTE posts associated with social care transfer to the National Health Service, the National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE), the Department for Constitutional Affairs (in respect to the Mental Health Tribunal and the Care Standards Tribunal), the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the Department for Education and Skills (in respect to services for children).

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Strategic health authority

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  175

  188

  214

  215

  233

  243

  245

  236

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  143

  139

  164

  170

  169

  186

  179

  181

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  211

  217

  211

  203

  216

  201

  255

  248

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  202

  229

  248

  261

  281

  280

  290

  288

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  114

  122

  136

  148

  158

  172

  160

  165

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  175

  172

  182

  186

  192

  198

  226

  190

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  213

  205

  229

  217

  267

  239

  258

  290

  Dorset and Somerset

  104

  102

  110

  110

  111

  128

  117

  115

  Essex

  124

  127

  136

  157

  172

  155

  172

  163

  Greater Manchester

  306

  342

  374

  372

  410

  403

  428

  428

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  126

  146

  142

  147

  161

  182

  191

  176

  Kent and Medway

  160

  203

  176

  209

  212

  215

  202

  221

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  134

  111

  132

  143

  140

  154

  133

  139

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  190

  194

  201

  210

  225

  244

  231

  242

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern

  164

  175

  176

  188

  175

  191

  204

  256

  North Central London

  149

  151

  163

  182

  181

  187

  217

  251

  North East London

  199

  194

  196

  203

  216

  207

  220

  254

  North West London

  252

  242

  254

  269

  286

  327

  315

  319

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  115

  118

  127

  115

  131

  139

  137

  148

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  173

  153

  178

  192

  194

  194

  237

  228

  South East London

  208

  177

  181

  202

  211

  222

  219

  207

  South West London

  107

  147

  140

  146

  175

  180

  181

  197

  South West Peninsula

  123

  143

  155

  162

  170

  181

  173

  193

  South Yorkshire

  156

  156

  168

  158

  170

  181

  178

  169

  Surrey and Sussex

  200

  236

  236

  245

  258

  270

  286

  309

  Thames Valley

  190

  196

  190

  210

  210

  225

  248

  241

  Trent

  255

  256

  280

  295

  270

  284

  292

  302

  West Yorkshire

  195

  186

  220

  210

  228

  249

  235

  265

  Region

  East Midlands

  1,974

  2,098

  2,589

  2,562

  2,589

  2,992

  2,852

  3,162

  Eastern

  1,562

  1,668

  2,034

  2,260

  2,679

  2,811

  3,086

  3,270

  London

  3,489

  4,211

  4,554

  5,282

  5,719

  7,045

  7,747

  8,306

  North East

  1,070

  1,212

  1,432

  1,482

  1,701

  1,722

  1,692

  1,927

  North West

  2,565

  2,947

  3,565

  3,838

  4,663

  5,121

  5,629

  6,331

  South East

  2,165

  2,736

  3.078

  3,549

  4,095

  4.527

  4,510

  5,072

  South West

  1,678

  1,827

  2,197

  2,418

  2,582

  2.928

  2,979

  3,233

  West Midlands

  1,879

  2,151

  2,477

  2,623

  2,922

  3,327

  3,974

  4,116

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,391

  2,712

  3,217

  3,495

  3,836

  3,868

  4,571

  5,404

  Source:

  KC60 statutory returns from GUM clinics

  728W
  Before the departmental reorganisation, there were 314 WTE staff working in the public health field (including preventative health and education services) within the Department. Post re-organisation, there will be 250 WTE staff, who will work both within the newly created health improvement directorate in the Department and in public health posts planned in each of the nine regional public health areas. The post re-organisation staffing figure already takes into account the planned transfer of nine WTE posts to the Department for Education and Skills (in respect to teenage pregnancy services), and an expected reduction of 64 WTE posts.

  Sexual Health
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many teenagers were treated for sexually transmitted diseases in England in each of the last 10 years, broken down by(a) NHS region and (b) strategic health authority. [154144]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of teenagers treated for sexually transmitted diseases in genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics in England from 1995 to 2002 inclusive, by National Health Service region and strategic health authority are shown in the table.

  Data refer to attenders at genitourinary medicine clinics aged less than 20 years with one or more of the following diagnoses: infectious syphilis, uncomplicated gonorrhoea, uncomplicated chlamydial infection, genital herpes (first attack) and genital warts (first attack).
  729W

  Winter Deaths
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing avoidable winter deaths in the elderly. [153821]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There are four main strands to the efforts nationally to reduce avoidable winter deaths:Immunisation of older people against influenza and pneumococcal disease
  Increasing awareness among older people of the risks of cold weather, and the benefits and other help available to keep homes warm
  The national Fuel Poverty Strategy
  Improving our ability to link the forecasting of cold weather with measures designed to prevent people from becoming ill, as well as to improve the ability of the health service to plan for surges in demand, especially for hospital admission.

  A target for flu vaccination in those aged 65 and over has been set since the change in policy in 2000–01.

  In 2000–01 the target was 60 per cent., in 2001–02 65 per cent, and in 2002–03 and 2003–04 70 per cent. Uptake achieved has been 65 per cent., 68 per cent., 69 per cent, and 71 per cent, respectively.

  This year's result is an excellent achievement and exceeds our target of 70 per cent, set at the start of the campaign.

  The number of people aged 65 and over receiving their flu immunisation this year was 5,781,440—over 295,000 more people than last year

  The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has recommended extending pneumococcal immunisation to all aged 65 years and over.

  The new policy is to offer immunisation with pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine to all people aged 65 years and over. However, we are introducing the policy in stages. To start with, people aged 80 and over, who are most at risk from pneumococcal disease, will be offered the vaccine in 2003–04. They will be followed by all those aged 75 and over in 2004–05. By 2005–06 all those aged 65 and over should routinely be offered pneumococcal vaccine.

  People under these ages who are at higher risk from pneumococcal disease are already recommended to receive the vaccine. This includes people who have a heart condition, chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, a weakened immune system due to disease or treatment, a damaged spleen or no spleen.
  730W
  We will be collecting data on the number of people receiving their pneumococcal vaccination, but this will not be available until after April 2004.

  A Keep Warm, Keep Well campaign operates in England each winter. This provides free booklets for the public and special literature for health professionals; a telephone helpline, and advice on how those most in need may apply for grants (such as the Warm Front grant—a scheme providing grant for comprehensive packages of insulation and heating improvements for those on low incomes most vulnerable to cold-related ill health); advice on benefit payments; as well as the health benefits of keeping warm.

  The relationship between indoor temperatures and ill health is complex, with other factors such as outside exposure and behavioural factors involved. However, the likelihood of ill health is increased by cold damp homes. Illnesses such as influenza, heart disease and strokes are all exacerbated by the cold and older people are especially vulnerable.

  The Department of Health is working together with other Government Departments to reduce the number of households in fuel poverty. Good progress has already been made with the number of fuel poor households falling from approximately 5.5 million in 1996 to about 3 million in 2001 with predictions of a further reduction of 0.5 million for 2002.

  Health professionals within the National Health Service have been made fully aware of fuel poverty as a potential health determinant and widely encouraged to identify and advise patients for whom cold, damp home conditions might be a health risk.

  At the local level, fuel poverty is on the agenda of many health professionals in delivering fuel poverty initiatives and fuel poverty has been identified as a key priority within the Health Inequalities Programme for Action.

  Her Majesty's Treasury funding was made available up to April 2003 to allow some exploratory work, led by the Met Office, to develop models to forecast workload for primary and secondary care, built in part on weather forecasting. The evaluation of this exploratory work was inconclusive. Preliminary discussions are currently underway between the NHS, the Department and the Met Office to determine next steps, and in particular whether it is possible to
  refine the approaches taken to preventative interventions, targeted in time and place so as to gain maximum benefit for patients before they fall ill, and
  manage NHS workload more proactively than at present, so that services, including hospitals, are better placed to manage surges in demand, particularly for hospital admission.
  731W

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Fines (Magistrates Courts)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much was collected in fines at magistrates courts in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion was allocated to(a) central Treasury funds and (b) local crime prevention schemes. [155953]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on fines imposed and collected is provided by the 42 Magistrates Courts Committees in England and Wales.

  In 2002–03 fines income from Magistrates Courts amounted to £121,202,780 of which £43,679,000 was used to fund enforcement activity. The balance of £77,523.780 was allocated to central Treasury funds.

  In 2002–03, the Home Office provided funding direct to local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships in England and Wales as follows:
  Communities Against Drugs—00 million (plus a special one-off uplift of £20 million in 2002–03 as part of the street crime initiative)
  The Safer Communities Initiative—£20 million

  Judiciary (Northern Ireland)
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many members of judicial offices in Northern Ireland are(a)female and (b) from an ethnic minority. [156976]

  Mr. Leslie
  Taking both full-time and deputy judicial posts there are 19 female members of the judiciary. This represents 16 per cent. of the overall total.

  There are no members of the full-time and deputy judiciary in Northern Ireland from a minority ethnic background.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much has been paid to the Community Law Partnership of Birmingham by the Legal Services Commission and the Legal Aid Board in each of the last five accounting years for which figures are available; how many cases there were; what proportion of the sum in each year was paid to the Community Law Partnership for cases brought by or against(a) travellers or traveller families and (b)local and public authorities, broken down by authority; how many cases there were in each year; and how many of the cases funded in each year resulted in (i) a satisfied order for costs being made in favour of the client represented by the Community Law Partnership and (ii) an irrecoverable financial loss to the Legal Aid Board or the Legal Services Commission. [156529]
  732W
  Mr. Lammy
  The Community Law Partnership of Birmingham registered with the then Legal Aid Board in December 1998. Total payments made to the organisation for each full financial year since 1999–2000 were as follows.

  £

  1999–2000

  233,059

  2000–01

  432,229

  2001–02

  412,452

  2002–03

  802,849

  The number of Legal Help matters started by the Community Law Partnership of Birmingham since 2000–01, the first full year of the Legal Services Commission's contracting system, were as follows:

  Number

  2000–01

  1,340

  2001–02

  932

  2002–03

  929

  Certificates issued to the Community Law Partnership:

  Number

  1998–99

  49

  1999–2000

  252

  2000–01

  264

  2001–02

  326

  2002–03

  331

  2003–04 (to 31 December 2003)

  248

  Total (1998 to December 2004)

  1,470

  For Legal Help cases, the Legal Services Commission does not record any client details which identify the client's background, or any information on the identity of whom the case was brought against.

  For the number of cases funded in each year which resulted in (i) a satisfied order for costs being made in favour of the client represented by the Community Law Partnership and (ii) an irrecoverable financial loss to the Legal Aid Board or the Legal Services Commission please refer to the following table.

  Cases settled at no cost to the Fund

  Cases closed with no recovery of costs or damages

  Number

  Face value (£)

  Number

  Net cost(£)

  1998–99

  0

  —

  1

  2,400

  1999–2000

  27

  108,300

  73

  65,300

  2000–01

  57

  210.000

  147

  195,500

  2001–02

  60

  237,300

  152

  227,500

  2002–03

  48

  222,500

  170

  280,700

  2003–04 (to December 2004)

  49

  218,200

  159

  296,700

  Total (1998 December 2004)

  241

  996,300

  702

  1,068,100

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the average
  733W
  cost is per case for magistrates courts criminal cases in England and Wales of payments under the legal aid scheme to solicitors in private practice. [156756]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave to his question on 12 February 2004,Official Report, column 1671W

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many days on average his Department took in Session 2002–03 to give a substantive answer to a parliamentary Question for Ordinary Written Answer; and what the greatest number of days taken to answer such a Question was. [155916]

  Mr. Leslie
  On average, my Department took 6.6 sitting days to give a substantive answer to a Parliamentary Question for Ordinary Written Answer. The greatest number of days taken to answer an Ordinary Written Question was 55 sitting days.

  Recruitment Advertising
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what his Department's expenditure on recruitment advertising was in each of the last three years, broken down by publication; and what proportion of such expenditure was(a) to advertise vacant posts trod (b) in the form of other general recruitment advertising. [155521]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information about recruitment advertising costs is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Voting
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to introduce all-postal voting in trial constituencies for the next general election; and if he will make a statement. [157304]

  Mr. Leslie
  None. A Bill proposing the conduct of all-postal pilots in selected electoral regions in this year's European parliamentary elections in June is currently under parliamentary consideration. Subject to the Bill's successful passage, the independent Electoral Commission will assess those schemes which are conducted. We will consider carefully the Commission's assessment and any recommendations before considering any extension of pilot schemes to parliamentary elections.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment the Department has made of(a) incentive schemes and (b) payments to encourage voter participation. [156535]

  Mr. Leslie
  None. Any gift or promise of a gift of money, or any other 'Valuable consideration', to an elector is regarded under electoral legislation as a bribe even if the gift is made simply to encourage the elector to vote or refrain from voting. This is a basic feature of any democratic electoral system which purports to be 734W
  open and fair to all electors. Paying electors or offering gifts to turn out to vote would be likely to increase the likelihood of electoral abuse and fraud.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what research the Department has collated into the propensity to vote of different social-economic groups. [156536]

  Mr. Leslie
  None. The Government are able to draw from research undertaken by the independent Electoral Commission on the voting intentions of electors for the European parliamentary and London's Mayoral and Assembly elections in 2004 in its report, Public Opinion and the 2004 Elections'. The Commission has also published the reports 'Voter Engagement and Young People' and Voter engagement among Black and Minority Ethnic Communities' on those groups in society widely recognised as less likely to vote.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Cheadle Royal Hospital
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the Answers of 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 502W and 10 February, 2004 Official Report, column 1423W, on Cheadle Royal Hospital, (1) what assessment he has made of the full market value at the time of its transfer to AMEC in 1994 of charity land at Cheadle Royal Hospital which has become a 67 acre business park; [155606]

  (2) pursuant to the Answers of 12 January 2004, Official Report, column 502W and 10 February 2004, Official Report, column 1423W, on Cheadle Royal Hospital, what assessment he has made of the full market value of Cheadle Royal Hospital grounds and associated buildings at the time of its management buyout in 1997; [155607]

  (3) pursuant to the Answers of 12 January 2004, Official Report, column 502W and 10 February 2004, Official Report, column 1423W, on Cheadle Royal Hospital, which documents he has assessed to reach his conclusions. [155609]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  These are matters for the Charity Commission as the Government Department responsible for the regulation of charities in England and Wales. The Director of Operations will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my reply will be placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answers of 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 502W and 10 February 2004, Official Report, column 1423W, on Cheadle Royal Hospital, what assessment he has made of the scrutiny arrangements with respect to the work of the Charity Commission. [155608]
  735W
  formal decisions, and complaints systems including an independent reviewer. In respect of its administrative actions it comes within the investigative powers of the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

  The Cabinet Office Strategy Unit's review of charity law and regulation recommended that it should continue to operate at arms' length from Ministers, with a modernised statement of purpose and accountability framework. The Government accepted these recommendations ("Charities and Not-for-Profits: A Modern Legal Framework", July 2003) and they will be reflected in the draft Charities Bill that will be published in the current Session.

  Child Poverty
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to achieve the Government's targets of(a) ending child poverty by 2020, (b) halving it by 2010 and (c) reducing it by a quarter by 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [154385]

  Paul Goggins
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 12 February,Official Report, column 1590W.

  Child Trafficking
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what resources are available under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to promote best practice in service provision for child victims of trafficking; [152342]

  (2) what resources will be made available under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to provide centrally funded care for child victims of trafficking in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [152343]

  Paul Goggins [holding answer 26 February 2004]
  The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduces offences covering trafficking for sexual exploitation, and will come into force in May 2004. No resources are available explicitly to promote best practice in service provision for child victims of trafficking. However, the Home Office has published a best practice toolkit for those who deal with illegal immigrants and the victims of trafficking. The toolkit will help those who come into contact with victims of child trafficking to identify and deal with them appropriately. The Immigration Service is also starting specialist training for around 600 operational members of staff nation-wide, which will have a positive impact on their ability to identify and assist trafficked children.

  Correctional Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Prison Service will be meeting the Correctional Service Accreditation Panel to obtain advice on the extension of the FOR resettlement programme. [155344]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service will be meeting with the Correctional Service Accreditation Panel from 15 to 19 March 2004. Decisions about the extension of the 736W
  FOR (Focus on Resettlement) programme will be taken in the light of the advice provided and resourcing available.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his oral statement of 6 January,Official Report, columns 170–87, on Correctional Services, what definition he uses of contestability. [147353]

  Paul Goggins
  Contestability is the principle that best quality and best value for money in the supervision, punishment and care of offenders will be achieved through ensuring that all services are opened up to competition.

  We aim to encourage the public, private, voluntary and 'not for profit' sectors to compete to provide services to offenders, both in prison and in the community, that are the most effective and efficient that can be provided. At the same time we want to encourage partnerships between different sectors to make sure that we make best use of the different strengths and qualities each can bring.

  We intend to build on the successful experience of the Prison Service's market testing programme, which has demonstrated that public services can compete successfully with the private sector. We also want to maintain the impetus created by the Performance Improvement Programme which has led to dramatic improvements in regimes and cost at some of the most challenging public sector prisons.

  Crime Victims
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the suitability of trusts as a means for victims to retain their eligibility for benefits after a compensation pay-out. [155347]

  Paul Goggins
  No such assessment has been made. I would refer my hon Friend to the answer given to her on 26 January 2004 Official Report, column 202W.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the evidential basis was for his decisions on the amounts to be levied on those guilty of victimless crimes to be used for compensation for victims of other crimes. [150779]

  Paul Goggins
  Few, if any crimes, are truly victimless. Many crimes perceived by some as victimless, such as drug dealing, fraud, vandalism and damage can blight the lives of people, create an unpleasant environment and impose a cost to society.

  The proposed surcharge, ranging from £5 to £30, on criminal convictions and on fixed penalty notices for criminal offences is one of a series of proposals set out in the consultation paper 'Compensation and Support for Victims of Crime', published on 12 January 2004. The surcharge has been proposed at a level intended to encourage the maximum number of offenders to pay, and to be proportionate taken alongside the penalty imposed by the courts, or the fixed penalty notice.
  737W
  Estimates for the rates of payment with and without enforcement are based on existing data on collection of fixed penalty notices and financial penalties imposed by the courts, and calculations that informed the Courts Act 2003.

  In the consultation paper, among other questions, we specifically invited views as to whether the suggested levels of the surcharge were right.

  No decisions about the surcharge proposal, or any of the other proposals, will be taken until all the responses to the consultation exercise have been carefully analysed.

  Crime/Disorder (Seaside Towns)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the overall crime and disorder rates were for each ward in each principal seaside town of England and Wales in the latest month for which figures are available, listed in descending order according to level of crime and with figures for Welsh seaside towns disaggregated; and if he will make a statement. [154963]

  Ms Blears [holding answer 23 February 2004]
  Recorded crime statistics are collected centrally at Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level. CDRF's were set up under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and are broadly Local Authority Areas. They include representatives from police, health, probation and other local agencies and provide strategies for reducing crime in the area. Figures for six key offence groups are collected at CDRP level. They are violence against the person, sexual offences, robbery, burglary in a dwelling, theft of a motor vehicle, and theft from a vehicle. There are currently 376 CDRPs in England and Wales.

  Financial year figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03 for all CDRP areas, for six key offence groups are, available in Excel format on the Home Office Research Development Statistics website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703supl.xls

  CDRP figures are not available on a monthly basis.

  Detention and Training Orders
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances magistrates can impose a detention and training order on an offender aged 12 to 14 years who has been convicted of breaching an anti-social behaviour order. [150993]

  Paul Goggins [pursuant to his reply, 9 February 2004, Official Report, c. 1256 W]
  It has come to my attention that the answer to the above question was not printed in full. I apologise for this and provide the full answer as follows.

  A court sentencing an offender aged 12–14 for breach of an anti-social behaviour order can make a Detention and Training Order in the same circumstances as for other criminal offences attracting custody: That is, where:
  it decides that the effect of the breach either in itself or in combination with associated offences is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified; or
  738W
  the anti-social behaviour involves a violent or sexual offence and only a custodial sentence would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from the offender; or
  the offender refuses to agree to a requirement in a proposed non-custodial order: a supervision order, a drug treatment and testing order or an order to provide a sample for drug-testing.

  In addition, the court must have reached the view that the young person is a persistent offender.

  Driving Offences
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the laws governing the sentencing of unlicensed drivers whose driving results in a fatality; and what plans he has to change the present laws. [156317]

  Paul Goggins
  Where a fatality results from a driving incident where the driver is believed to be at fault, the CPS will charge an appropriate offence such as causing death by dangerous driving or manslaughter. On 27 February the Government increased the penalty for three fatality offences—causing death by dangerous driving; causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs; aggravated vehicle-taking where, owing to the driving, a death results—from 10 to 14 years; and the maximum for manslaughter is life.

  Elderly Prisoners
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what strategies are in place to deal with(a) accommodation, (b) healthcare and (c) activity for elderly prisoners. [155253]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service does recognise its duty to care for older prisoners and seeks to meet all their needs, including, medical and any special accommodation requirements, according to individual circumstances. Establishments that are holding older prisoners have developed local strategies and there are a number of excellent initiatives being adopted across the estate.

  Voting Irregularities
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many convictions for abuse of postal votes in United Kingdom elections there were in each of the last five years; [156546]

  (2) how many people were prosecuted for failing to comply with electoral registration requirements in each of the last five years. [156543]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Information collected centrally by the Home Office on court proceedings under the Representation of the People Act 1983 does not enable these offences to be separately identified.

  Electronic Evidence
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the reliability of electronic evidence; [154018]

  (2) what assessment he has made of systems for the sealing of electronic evidence; and what trials have taken place. [154020]
  739W
  Paul Goggins
  Assessing the reliability of evidence in whatever form is a matter for the courts. However, the Government are concerned that the public should have full confidence in the integrity of all evidence, including electronic evidence, and are determined to ensure that appropriate guidance and procedures are in place to support it. In March 2002, the Police Scientific Development Branch of the Home Office, in conjunction with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), published the guidance document, Digital Imaging Procedure. This is now in use across the criminal justice system in England and Wales.

  The document sets out detailed guidance for operational, administrative, and judicial staff on the procedures that should be followed to ensure that digitally captured images can be accepted as evidence throughout the Criminal Justice System. Among other matters, the document includes guidance for audit trails to ensure the authenticity and integrity of the evidence, and how to protect the 'Master' image. The procedure does not rely on 'electronic' protection but neither does it preclude its use: as the guidance points out, there are several methods for electronically' authenticating an image file.

  However, in the case of digital images captured by unattended roadside traffic enforcement cameras, the use of electronic protection is made mandatory by non-statutory guidance in the form of a document issued by the Police Scientific Development Branch entitled "The Speedmeter Handbook". This is because the image is the only evidence of an offence having taken place. The method of protection used is one that is based on techniques used to secure banking transactions.

  ACPO have also produced a good practice guide on electronic evidence to provide advice and principles for police forces in dealing with all electronic evidence.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce electronic evidence sealing technology into(a) investigation of relevant crimes and (b) his Department's electronic communications. [154019]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government are concerned that the public should have full confidence in the integrity of all evidence adduced in criminal proceedings, including evidence in an electronic form. Unattended roadside traffic enforcement cameras are required to be of a type approved by the Secretary of State, and the digital images they capture are protected electronically. A method based on techniques used to secure banking transactions is used for this purpose.

  The Digital Imaging Procedure', which sets out best practice guidelines for ensuring the acceptability in court of all other digital images as evidence, does not rely on electronic protection of images but neither does it preclude its use. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has also produced a good practice guide on electronic evidence to provide advice and principles for police forces in dealing with all electronic evidence. We are determined that appropriate and effective procedures and guidance should be available to ensure the admissibility in court of other kinds of
  740W
  electronic evidence, and are satisfied that this is currently the case. These matters are, however, kept under constant review.

  The Home Office currently has no plans to introduce electronic evidence sealing technology into its electronic communications.

  Home Detention Curfew
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what problems have been experienced with home detention curfew; and what adjustments will be made to the programme to combat them. [155343]

  Paul Goggins
  My reply of 22 January 2004,Official Report, column 1438W, provides details of the success of the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme, which is monitored on a continual basis. I am satisfied that the scheme continues to work well.

  The Government are committed to the HDC scheme but it is important to keep it under review, extending it where sensible and appropriate while keeping a proper balance in terms of public safety and confidence. On 14 January 2004 I introduced a further safeguard to ensure that public confidence in the scheme is maintained. Prisoners who have been involved in notorious crimes will not be released on HDC unless the chief executive of National Offender Management Service is satisfied that their release will not undermine public confidence in the scheme.

  Magistrates Courts
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to(a) revise and (b) reissue guidance on reporting restrictions in the magistrates' court. [153105]

  Paul Goggins
  Guidance on reporting restrictions in the Youth. Court is contained in the Youth Court 2001 The Changing Culture of the Youth Court Good Practice Guide which was published jointly by the Lord Chancellors Department and the Home Office in 2001 While there are no current plans to revise or reissue this guidance it will be kept under review.

  Munby Judgment
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held following the Munby Judgment with(a) the Minister for Children, (b) local authority associations and (c) local authorities about the application of the Children Act 1989 to young people in custody. 154427]

  Paul Goggins [holding answer 11 February 2004]
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I met the Minister for Children on 27 October 2003 to discuss the report of an official working group on the application of the Children Act 1989 to young people in custody.

  The working group comprised representatives of the Youth Justice Board, the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services. The Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills had observer status. The group

  741W
  met a number of times between February and August 2003 and produced its report in September. I am placing a copy in the Library.

  Following the meeting on 27 October, it was agreed that the Youth Justice Board would provide an additional £1 million to fund extra social worker places at Young Offender Institutions. The new staff will be responsible for ensuring that the duties placed on local authorities by the Children Act are fulfilled.

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and if he will make a statement. [147073]

  Beverley Hughes
  Between 1 October 2003 and 18 February 2004 60 representations have been received from hon. Members since the end of September 2003 and 21 letters from members of the public about section 55. The Refugee Council also made representations in meetings with Ministers.

  Section 55 of the 2002 Act, which came into force on 8 January 2003, is one of a range of measures designed to reduce the number of asylum applications. It is reasonable to expect asylum seekers to make their claim on arrival or very shortly afterwards. Section 55 prevents the provision of support (including emergency accommodation) where the claim is not made as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival in the United Kingdom. In practice, claiming
  "as soon as reasonably practicable"
  normally means doing so on arrival at the port of entry or within three days of arrival, providing the story given about arrival is otherwise credible.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police cells are being brought up to Government standards in Lancashire; how many are sub-standard but are being used; how many cells are not used by Lancashire Police, and how many are mothballed. [153506]

  Ms Blears
  The Chief Constable of Lancashire has informed me that:One hundred and twelve cells are being brought up to Government standards;
  Eighty two cells are categorised as sub-standard, not having fully met the recommendations of the Police Buildings Design Guide 1994, these are being brought up to standard but are in use;
  Thirteen cells are not in use;
  and thirty six cells have been mothballed.

  Prisons
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the work of prison anti-bullying co-ordinators is monitored. [155345]
  742W
  Paul Goggins
  The designated duties of anti-bullying co-ordinators are overseen through:Normal line management monitoring;
  Monitoring by the senior management team monitoring (usually monthly and minuted) and by the anti-bullying management and/or safer prisons team;
  Testing of systems by area performance co-ordinators;
  The Prison Service's Standards Audit Unit vigorous testing of systems every two years; and
  Self-audit testing of systems at least once every two years (often annually).

  In 2002, a national review of anti-bullying work in prisons indicated that establishments had generally implemented local strategies with innovative and monitored actions being taken in many establishments.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make it compulsory for prisoners to take part in educational activities; and if he will make a statement. [155643]

  Paul Goggins [holding answer 23 February 2004]
  The Prison Service needs to be able to respond to and address a range of factors which contribute to offending behaviour, according to individual need. It therefore has no plans to introduce a compulsion for all prisoners to take part in learning activities. However, the majority of offenders have very poor skills which are a serious obstacle to their rehabilitation and chances of employment on release. Through increased investment, increased partnership working, and the appointment of new Heads of Learning and Skills across the prison estate, we are working towards a new service which will embed learning and skills across the range of prison activities, drive up quality and enhance continuity between opportunities in custodial and community settings.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to use secure online examinations to assist prisoners in gaining qualifications. [155644]

  Paul Goggins [holding answer 23 February 2004]
  The Prison Service is currently piloting a secure approach to offering prisoners examinations on demand. Future rollout will be informed by the success of this pilot.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the prison population has access to the internet; and what proportion of the prison population regularly uses it. [155645]

  Paul Goggins [holding answer 23 February 2004]
  Because of security considerations only a very small number of prisoners have limited internet access. The prison population on 13 February 2004 was 74,420. Of these, 31 prisoners have regular but restricted access to the internet as part of their employment.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to ensure that overcrowding in prisons does not negatively affect the healthcare available to prisoners. [155247]
  743W
  Paul Goggins
  Since 1997, 15,000 new prison places have been provided. In addition, our programme of reform of health services for prisoners will see spending on health services increase by more than £40 million a year in the three years to March 2006.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have mental health problems; and what proportion of these are from ethnic minorities. [155632]

  Paul Goggins
  In 1997, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) undertook a survey of "Psychiatric morbidity amongst prisoners in England and Wales", which reported that around 90 per cent. of prisoners sampled showed evidence of at least one of the five disorders, personality disorder, psychosis, neurosis, alcohol misuse and drug dependence. The report included a range of information on the prevalence of specific mental health problems in black and minority ethnic prisoners. A copy of the ONS study is in the Library.

  Prisons and their NHS Primary Care Trust partners are responsible for assessing the health needs of their populations and developing services to meet those needs.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are being prescribed more than one type of psychotropic drug for treatment of mental illness; and what proportion of those being prescribed one or more psychotropic drug are from ethnic minorities. [155633]

  Paul Goggins
  This information is not available.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce competition into prisons through the use of private and voluntary providers. [147369]

  Paul Goggins
  We want the most cost effective custodial and community sentences possible, no matter who delivers them. We also want to encourage partnerships between public and private sector providers and the voluntary and community sectors which can harness their respective strengths.

  An implementation team has been established to consider the specific details of how this will be realised. We are also seeking views on how to improve contestability and value for money within the new structure of the National Offender Management Service.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals were held in prisons in England and Wales on 30 June 2003, broken down by nationality; and how many foreign nationals are held in each prison in England and Wales. [156032]

  Paul Goggins
  The numbers of foreign nationals who were held in prisons in England and Wales on 30 June 2003, broken down by(a) nationality and (b) establishment, are given in the tables.
  744W

  Population of Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, by 30 June 2003

  UK Nationals

  63,678

  Africa

  Algeria

  140

  Angola

  41

  Botswana

  1

  Burundi

  7

  Cameroon, United Republic

  16

  Central African Republic

  8

  Chad

  3

  Congo

  54

  Cote D'Ivoire (Ivory Coast)

  14

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  43

  Djibouti

  1

  Egypt

  14

  Ethiopia

  19

  French Guiana

  2

  Gambia

  26

  Ghana

  111

  Guinea

  5

  Kenya

  61

  Liberia

  13

  Libya

  18

  Malawi

  5

  Mali

  1

  Mauritania

  2

  Mauritius

  11

  Morocco

  35

  Mozambique

  1

  Namibia

  2

  Nigeria

  336

  Rwanda

  4

  Sao Tome and Principe

  1

  Senegal

  2

  Seychelles

  1

  Sierre Leone

  56

  Somalia

  167

  South Africa

  135

  Sudan

  19

  Tanzania

  10

  Togo

  8

  Tunisia

  11

  Uganda

  47

  Zambia

  16

  Zimbabwe

  44

  Asia

  Bangladesh

  141

  Bhutan

  1

  Brunei

  1

  Cambodia

  1

  China

  85

  Hong Kong

  5

  India

  234

  Indonesia

  5

  Japan

  2

  Korea Republic of (Sth)

  6

  Malaysia

  13

  Maldives

  1

  Mongolia

  3

  Myanmar, Union of (Burma)

  2

  Nepal

  2

  Pakistan

  381

  Phillipines

  14

  Singapore

  3

  Sri Lanka

  114

  Surinam

  2

  Thailand

  5

  Vietnam

  41

  Central/South America

  Argentina

  7

  Bolivia

  4

  745W

  Population of Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, by 30 June 2003

  Brazil

  30

  Chile

  14

  Colombia

  123

  Costa Rica

  1

  Ecuador

  9

  Guatemala

  2

  Mexico

  8

  Nicaragua

  1

  Panama

  2

  Peru

  5

  Venezuela

  40

  Europe

  Albania

  66

  Andorra

  1

  Armenia

  4

  Austria

  4

  Azerbijan

  1

  Belgium

  46

  Bosnia-Hercegovina

  5

  Bulgaria

  5

  Croatia

  6

  Cyprus

  64

  Czech Republic

  21

  Denmark

  12

  Estonia

  1

  Finland

  3

  France

  104

  Georgia

  2

  Germany

  109

  Gibraltar

  2

  Greece

  28

  Hungary

  20

  Irish Republic

  681

  Italy

  110

  Kazakhstan

  1

  Kyrgystan

  1

  Latvia

  11

  Lithuania

  33

  Luxembourg

  1

  Macedonia

  3

  Malta

  13

  Moldova

  20

  Netherlands

  232

  Norway

  2

  Poland

  47

  Portugal

  103

  Romania

  76

  Russian Federation

  78

  Serbia and Montenegro

  114

  Slovakia

  6

  Slovenia

  3

  Spain

  109

  Sweden

  6

  Switzerland

  7

  Turkey

  250

  Turkmenistan

  2

  Uzbekistan

  3

  Middle East

  Afghanistan

  114

  Bahrain

  1

  Iran

  76

  Iraq

  139

  Israel

  14

  Jordan

  6

  Kuwait

  2

  Lebanon

  17

  Saudi Arabia

  8

  Syrian Arab Republic

  6

  United Arab Emirates

  5

  Yemen, Republic of

  8

  North America

  Canada

  23

  746W

  Population of Prison Service establishment in England and Wales, by 30 June 2003

  United States of America

  96

  Oceania

  Australia

  27

  Fiji

  4

  French Southern Territories

  3

  Guam

  1

  Kiribati

  1

  New Zealand

  6

  Papua New Guinea

  1

  West Indies

  Anguilla

  1

  Aruba

  2

  Bahamas

  6

  Barbados

  29

  Bermuda

  2

  Cuba

  4

  Dominica

  7

  Dominican Republic

  6

  Grenada

  13

  Guyana

  19

  Haiti

  2

  Jamaica

  2,770

  Montserrat

  10

  Netherlands Antilles

  14

  St Christopher and Nevis

  2

  St Kitts and Nevis

  4

  St Lucia

  18

  St Vincent and The Grenadines

  5

  Trinidad and Tobago

  85

  Virgin Islands

  1

  Other

  16

  Total Foreign Nationals

  8,799

  Not recorded

  1,180

  Total

  73,657

  Population of foreign nationals in Prison Service 30 June 2003

  Altcourse

  42

  Askham Grange

  5

  Acklington

  21

  Albany

  21

  Ashfield

  9

  Ashwell

  32

  Aylesbury

  45

  Belmarsh

  251

  Buckley Hall

  37

  Blundeston

  145

  Bedford

  57

  Blantyre House

  6

  Brockhill

  4

  Bristol

  56

  Birmingham

  104

  Bullingdon

  122

  Brinsford

  15

  Blakenhurst

  82

  Bullwood Hall

  26

  Brixton

  228

  Chelmsford

  70

  Cardiff

  30

  Camp Hill

  152

  Cookham Wood

  41

  Coldingly

  85

  Castington

  3

  Channings Wood

  29

  Canterbury

  43

  Dartmoor

  34

  Dovegate

  136

  Drake Hall

  77

  Durham

  28

  Doncaster

  35

  Dorchester

  23

  747W

  Population of Foreign nationals in Prison Service 30 June 2003

  Deerbolt

  3

  Dover

  304

  Downview

  65

  Erlestoke

  36

  Standford Hill

  95

  East Sutton Park

  10

  Everthorpe

  18

  Eastwood Park

  32

  Exeter

  15

  Elmley

  177

  Forest Bank

  52

  Ford

  67

  Foston Hall

  34

  Frankland

  40

  Feltham

  149

  Full Sutton

  49

  Featherstone

  42

  Garth

  42

  Gloucester

  10

  Guys Marsh

  103

  Grendon (Spring Hill)

  52

  Glen Parva

  39

  Gartree

  21

  Hollesley Bay

  47

  Huntercombe

  23

  Moorland Open

  8

  Hewell Grange

  18

  Holme House

  27

  Hindley

  19

  Hull

  26

  Highdown

  142

  Highpoint

  195

  Haslar

  153

  Haverigg

  8

  Holloway

  123

  Kirkham

  15

  Kirklevington

  6

  Lancaster

  3

  Leicester

  25

  Leeds

  56

  Lancaster Farms

  14

  Lowdham Grange

  115

  Lindholme

  29

  Lincoln

  13

  Long Lartin

  64

  Latchmere House

  23

  Low Newton

  4

  Liverpool

  48

  Littlehey

  71

  Lewes

  54

  Leyhill

  46

  Moorland

  22

  Morton Hall

  225

  Manchester

  111

  Maidstone

  93

  Mount

  219

  Edmunds Hill

  51

  New Hall

  14

  Nottingham

  34

  Northallerton

  3

  North Sea Camp

  15

  Norwich

  77

  Onley

  54

  Portland

  82

  Parkhurst

  75

  Preston

  15

  Pare

  29

  Kingston (Portsmouth)

  14

  Pentonville

  315

  Rochester

  19

  Reading

  15

  Rye Hill

  132

  748W

  Population of Foreign nationals in Prison Service 30 June 2003

  Ranby

  20

  Risley

  52

  Send

  73

  Stafford

  26

  Stoke Heath

  10

  Stocken

  48

  Swaleside

  197

  Shepton Mallet

  11

  Swinfen Hall

  13

  Styal

  37

  Sudbury

  34

  Swansea

  9

  Shrewsbury

  13

  Thorn Cross

  2

  Usk (Prescoed)

  16

  Verne

  280

  Weare

  37

  Wellingborough

  52

  Winchester

  61

  Wakefield

  26

  Wealstun

  18

  Woodhill

  75

  Warren Hill

  25

  Wayland

  170

  Wymott

  25

  Werrington

  1

  Wolds

  11

  Whitemoor

  68

  Wormwood Scrubs

  482

  Whatton

  17

  Wandsworth

  356

  Wetherby

  9

  Total

  8,799

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a demographic breakdown of the prison population. [156081]

  Paul Goggins
  The publication Prison Statistics England and Wales 2002 provides a demographic breakdown of the prison population. A copy of this publication is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the size of the United Kingdom's prison population as compared to other European countries. [148887]

  Paul Goggins
  Information on comparative prison populations is contained in World Prison Population List (fifth edition), Home Office Findings No. 23, published in February 2004.
  The United Kingdom's prison population rate places it above the mid-point in the world list and the highest among the countries of the European Union.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision is made for women's clothes by the Prison Service. [154864]
  749W
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that vulnerable women discharged from prison have appropriate accommodation. [154865]

  Paul Goggins
  Housing is the major resettlement priority for women leaving prison and considerable investment has been made in housing advice projects through the custody to work programme, Prison Service Plus and other funding streams. Much of the investment has gone into local prisons so that, housing needs can be assessed and acted on when women first enter custody as well as prior to their release. In addition, the Home Office is leading cross-Government work on the Women's Offending Reduction Programme to address the complex criminogenic factors that affect women's offending. The Correctional Services are also jointly contributing to the development of a National Accommodation Strategy for all offenders as part of a wider rehabilitation strategy.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the availability of(a) therapeutic, (b) counselling and (c) support provision for prisoners identified as being vulnerable or at risk. [155246]

  Paul Goggins
  The prison population contains a substantial number of people who have experienced negative life events, all of which are identified as significant risk factors for suicide and self-harm. These include family background and relationship problems, social disadvantage or isolation, previous sexual or physical abuse, and mental health problems. Self-harming and suicidal behaviour often pre-date custody, and may have started early in life. Studies show that 27 per cent. of men and 44 per cent. of women on remand report having attempted suicide in their lifetime; and that 90 per cent. of all prisoners have shown evidence of at least one of the following: personality disorder, psychosis, neurosis, and alcohol misuse and drug dependence.

  Intervention strategies have been introduced for people who self-harm. These include counselling, support groups, and specialised psychological interventions. A network of establishments has been set up to develop interventions, facilitate evaluation and share good practice, and guidance to staff on managing people who self-harm has been circulated to establishments. A video is also being produced.

  (a)Therapeutic provision:

  A number of prisons, particularly women's, provide a range of therapeutic interventions for prisoners who self-harm. These include Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT), an innovative programme developed in the USA for women diagnosed with 'borderline personality disorder' (BPD) who also self-harm or who are suicidal. The Prison Service has introduced DBT to the women's estate, starting with an initial development programme at three sites: Durham, Bullwood Hall and Holloway.

  (b) Counselling provision:

  A number of prison establishments have introduced counselling for vulnerable prisoners. At both Bullwood Hall and Holloway prisons, all prisoners who have been identified as at risk of suicide/self-harm are offered individual crisis counselling. If appropriate, they are also referred to other agencies such as the general counselling service or CRUSE, a charity working with people who are suffering from
  750W
  bereavement, or the prison's art therapist, Counselling, Assessment, Referral and Throughcare (CARAT) services or Chaplaincy.

  (c) Support provision:

  The F2052SH self-harm warning system identifies and reviews the particular needs of prisoners experiencing periods of distress or crisis. The pilot of a replacement system began in January 2004 at five establishments. It aims to build on the successful aspects of the existing system, but build in a greater focus on care with teams of specially trained staff assessing the level of risk that at-risk prisoners present.

  Further avenues of support available across the prison estate include help with substance misuse issues, the input of healthcare professionals and/or mental health in-reach teams. helping maintain contact with family and friends, and the encouragement of self-help, for example, through education, IT or sport. There are numerous agencies and support mechanisms available to prisoners identified as at-risk, including Samaritans.

  Several prisons have set up support groups for prisoners who self-harm, or are at risk of self-harming. These are usually run by staff such as Suicide Prevention Co-ordinators or Occupational Therapists. These may either be informal `drop-in' groups, that prisoners can choose to attend for as many or few sessions as they wish, or groups which run for a specific period of time with the same set of participants.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Prison Service has to introduce(a) a policy, (b) a programme and (c) a target for alcohol reduction. [155249]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service is currently preparing an alcohol strategy, which will he finalised in spring 2004.

  A range of anti-alcohol interventions are available. Detoxification for alcohol is available on reception in all local and remand prisons; some prisons run alcohol awareness courses; Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) run services in around 50 per cent. of prisons and more intensive courses are run in nine prisons. Some offending behaviour programmes address the underlying criminogenic factors, which occur in alcohol related violent crime. Further expansion of interventions will depend on the availability of additional resources. There are no plans to introduce a target for alcohol reduction.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make an assessment of the extent of inter-prisoner violence. [155346]

  Paul Goggins
  The extent of violence in prisons is measured each year as a key performance indicator.

  In April 2003, a new high level measure of violence was introduced, based on the number of reported serious assaults. This replaced the previous measure, which was based on positive adjudications for assault. All establishments are currently developing a violence reduction strategy and action plan for personal safety.
  751W

  Prisoners (Foreign Nationals)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals committed suicide whilst in custody in England and Wales in each of the last five years. [155386]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested with respect to prisons and immigration removal centres is provided in the following table.

  Number of self-inflicted deaths1 of foreign nationals in prison custody

  Number of self-inflicted deaths of foreign nationals in immigration removal centers

  1999

  7

  0

  2000

  5

  1

  2001

  5

  0

  2002

  10

  0

  2003

  8

  21

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

  2 This death occurred at HM Immigration Removal Centre Haslar, a Prison Service managed centre.

  The police do not collate data centrally on the number of foreign nationals who commit suicide in their custody.

  Reducing the number of self-inflicted deaths in prison establishments is an essential part of the Prison Service's decency agenda and a priority for Ministers. A three-year strategy to develop policies and practices to prevent prisoner suicide and manage self-harm started in April 2001. This is currently under review, taking into account learning from the various projects initiated over the last three years, emerging research findings and a wide consultation process. The main principles of the strategy apply across all types of prisons and to all prisoners, regardless of nationality.

  All immigration removal centres are required to comply with an Operating Standard on suicide and self-harm prevention, and a range of measures is in place to address the issue. These measures include: suicide awareness and emergency first aid training for staff, active Suicide Prevention Committees operating in all centres, and systems for paying particular attention to detainees on their first night in detention or immediately prior to their removal.

  The police have also undertaken a number of initiatives to prevent self-inflicted deaths in their custody. These include: custody officer training in risk assessment and management, improvements in police practice in relation to the mentally ill, an increase in the range of custody healthcare professionals, improvements in procedures to assess and document specific risks presented by those coming into custody, the use of closed circuit television in cells, and the use in some forces of life signs monitoring systems.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to help foreign national prisoners maintain links with their families. [155250]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service places considerable importance on encouraging and assisting all prisoners to maintain meaningful contact with family and friends.
  752W
  All convicted prisoners have a statutory entitlement to send one letter, and unconvicted prisoners, two letters per week, at public expense. In addition to this, prisoners may send a letter at public expense in lieu of a statutory domestic visit. In addition, there are several measures which are advantageous to foreign national prisoners:
  It is Prison Service policy for foreign national prisoners, or those prisoners with close family abroad, who have not received a domestic visit during the preceding month to be given credit to make a telephone call.
  Such prisoners are also exempt from the limits on access to private cash for the purposes of making telephone calls.
  The Prison Service has recently negotiated a contract to provide the facility for prisoners to make international calls at significantly reduced rates.
  Where suitable arrangements are in place, foreign national prisoners can also apply to serve their sentences in their home countries close to their families and friends.
  It is Prison Service policy, wherever possible, to make information available in different languages in order that foreign nationals are aware of entitlements.
  The Prison Service has developed partnerships with voluntary organisations which provide specialist services for foreign national prisoners and their families in the UK and abroad.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he monitors the number of foreign national prisoners who are liable to deportation. [155251]

  Beverley Hughes
  Her Majesty's prisons are instructed to notify the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) of all foreign nationals sentenced to a term of imprisonment, together with their release dates once calculated.

  The Prison Service is currently conducting an audit to identify all foreign nationals who are serving a term of imprisonment.

  Probation
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vacancies there are in the 42 probation areas in England and Wales. broken down by grade; and how many probation officers have left the service in each financial year since 2000–01. [147663]

  Paul Goggins
  The latest published information requested is as follows: The total number of vacant posts within the National Probation Service as at 30 June 2003 broken down by grade is as follows:

  England and Wales

  Number of vacancies(full time equivalent)

  Senior Probation Officer

  37.1

  Senior Practitioner

  24.3

  Probation Officer

  345.0

  Trainee Probation Officer

  58.2

  Probation Services Officers

  329.6

  Psychologists

  0.5

  Other Operational Staff

  20.7

  Total Operational Staff

  815.4

  Deputy Chief Officers/Directors

  2.0

  AGO and equivalent

  7.7

  Area/District Managers or equivalent

  0.6

  Managers—Section or Function Heads

  10.9

  Support Staff—Administration

  203.9

  Support Staff Others

  14.7

  753W

  England and Wales

  Number of vacancies(full time equivalent)

  Other Specialist Workers

  4.7

  Total Support Staff

  244.5

  Total

  1,059.9

  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly with more up to date figures when these are available.

  The number of Probation Officers who have left the service in each financial year since 2000—01 is as follows:

  Number of leavers1

  England and Wales

  2000

  2001–021

  2002–03

  Deputy Chief Officers

  9

  57

  3

  Assistant Chief Officers2

  17

  575

  13

  Senior Probation Officers

  313

  5148

  78

  Probation Officers3

  593

  5967

  642

  Probation Service Officers4

  290

  see note 4 below

  see note 4 below

  All other staff

  429

  51.916

  1,670

  Total

  1,651

  53.113

  2.406

  1 Figures shown in Headcount and were collected for calendar years only 1997–2000 inclusive.

  2 Includes area managers

  3 Includes senior practitioners, trainee probation officers, temporary probation officers

  4 PSOs included in other staff 2001–02 onwards

  5 Includes proportion of service that moved to Family Court Welfare in April 2001; approximately 1,200 leavers

  Public Bodies
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who the members of the(a) Police Discipline Appeals Tribunal, (b) Police Complaints Authority; (c) Police Information Technology Organisation, (d) Prisons Board to the Prison Service and (e) Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151813]

  Paul Goggins
  For the bodies requested the following is a list of the members on 1 January 2004; their term of office, and whether they are remunerated.

  A member of a Police Authority also sits on a Police Discipline Appeals Tribunal considering an appeal under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999. Police Authorities are responsible for appointing such members, a list which is not held centrally. The Police Complaints Authority will be abolished on 31 March 2004 and all terms of appointment end on that date.

  When announcing the creation of the National Offender Management Service in his speech to the House of Commons on 6 January 2004, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary also announced the establishment of the National Offender Management Board. This will replace the Correctional Services Board. The Board includes a number of senior officials representing the Home Office, Department for Constitutional Affairs, Her Majesty's Treasury and No. 10. It has four non-executive members who are the only formal appointees. The Director General of the Prison Service is supported in his day to day responsibilities by the Prison Service Management Board which comprises the executive directors, the
  754W
  Prison Service Race Relations Adviser the head of Prison Service Media Relations and the Board Secretary.

  Police Discipline Appeals Tribunal

  Term of office

  Remunerated

  Mr. Richard Merz

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Simon Russell Flint QG

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Michael Caplan QC

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Gary Flather Obe QC

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Robin Grey QC

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Dorian Lovell-Pank QC

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Victor Temple QC

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Harendra De Silva

  5 years

  Yes

  Ms Joanna Greenberg QC

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Mukhtar Hussain QC

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. John Perry QC

  5 years

  Yes

  Sir Anthony Thomas Burden

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. David Shattock QPM

  5 years

  Yes

  Sir Edward Crew

  5 years

  Yes

  Sir Dan Crompton

  5 years

  Yes

  Ms Pauline Clare

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Peter Joslin Qpm DI BA (Hons) Cimgt

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Desmond Flanders QPM

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Barry Moss

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Ian Quinn

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Walter Boreham QBE, O.Stj, Qpm, D.Univ

  5 years

  Yes

  Sir David Joseph O'Dowd

  5 years

  Yes

  Sir John Evans O.St.J Qpm DI Lib

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. George Ernest Hedges Qpm DI

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Michael Sample

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Leonard Cantliffe

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Michael Bird

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Christopher Hudson

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Raymond Hughes

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Michael Mckenzie

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. David Arthur Pearce

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Ian Westwood

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Paul O'brien

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Alec Edward Alexander

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Anthony Judge

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Anthony Kevin Mason

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Robin Hobbs

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. John Harrison

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Patrick Butler

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Jeffery Mosely

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. David John French

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. David Gilbert Jones

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Allen Stanley

  5 years

  Yes

  Mr. Joseph Tildesley

  5 years

  Yes

  Police Compliants Authority

  Term of office

  Remunerated

  Sir Alistair Graham

  3 years

  Yes

  Ian Bynoe

  3 years

  Yes

  Wendy Towers

  3 years

  Yes

  Ann Barker

  3 years

  Yes

  Anne Boustred

  3 years

  Yes

  Duncan Gear

  3 years

  Yes

  Deborah Glass

  3 years

  Yes

  Sally Hawkins

  3 years

  Yes

  Alison MacDougall

  3 years

  Yes

  Mehmuda Mian Prichard

  3 years

  Yes

  David Petch

  3 years

  Yes

  Leo Pilkington

  3 years

  Yes

  Elaine Rassaby

  3 years

  Yes

  Marcu Williams

  3 years

  Yes

  Nicoja Williams

  3 years

  Yes

  Arthur Price-Jones

  3 years

  Yes

  Katherine Reid

  3 years

  Yes

  Dianne Hayle

  3 years

  Yes

  755W

  Police Information Technology Organisation

  Term of office

  Remunerated

  Chair (to be appointed)

  3 years

  Yes

  Dr. Louise Bennett

  3 years

  Yes

  Mr. Martin Taylor

  3 years

  Yes

  Ms Alisa Beaton

  3 years

  Yes

  Mr. Thomas Lloyd

  3 years

  Yes

  Mr. Paul Gavin

  3 years

  Yes

  Mr. Peter Wilson

  3 years

  Yes

  Mr. Peter Holland

  3 years

  Yes

  Mr. Stephen Murphy

  3 years

  Yes

  To be appointed

  3 years

  Yes

  Cllr Guroudeo Saluja

  3 years

  Yes

  Mr. Mark Gladwyn

  3 years

  Yes

  Dr. Linda Derrick

  3 years

  Yes

  Christie Smith

  3 years

  Yes

  Mr. Roy Toner

  3 years

  Yes

  Mr. Peter Winship

  3 years

  Yes

  Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

  Term of office

  Remunerated

  Sir Michael Rawlins

  3 years

  No

  Dr. Dima Abdulrahim

  3 years

  No

  Lord Victor Adebowale

  3 years

  No

  Mr. Norman Bettison

  3 years

  No

  Dr. Margaret Birlwhistle

  3 years

  No

  Reverend Martin Blakeborough

  3 years

  No

  Dr. Cecilia Bottomley

  3 years

  No

  Mr. Raj Boyjoonauth

  3 years

  No

  Ms Carmel Clancy

  3 years

  No

  Professor Llana Crome

  3 years

  No

  Ms Robyn Doran

  3 years

  No

  Mr. Robert Eschle

  3 years

  No

  Professor Hugh Edmondson

  3 years

  No

  Ms Vivienne Evans

  3 years

  No

  Professor C. Robin Ganellin FRS

  3 years

  No

  Dr. Laurence Gruer

  3 years

  No

  Mr. Paul Hayes

  3 years

  No

  Mr. Andrew Hayman

  3 years

  No

  Mr. Russell Hayton

  3 years

  No

  Mr. Peter Housden

  3 years

  No

  Mr. Roger Howard

  3 years

  No

  Mr. Alan Hunter

  3 years

  No

  His Honour Judge Thomas Joseph

  3 years

  No

  Dr. John Marsden

  3 years

  No

  Mr. Peter Martin

  3 years

  No

  Professsor Savid Nutt

  3 years

  No

  Mr. Richard Pates

  3 years

  No

  Mr. Trevor Pearce

  3 years

  No

  Mr. Arthur Preddy

  3 years

  No

  Dr. Mary Rowlands

  3 years

  No

  Mrs. Kay Roberts

  3 years

  No

  Mrs. Patricia Roberts

  3 years

  No

  Dr. Roy Robertson

  3 years

  No

  Dr. Polly Taylor

  3 years

  No

  Ms Monique Tomlinson

  3 years

  No

  Correctional Service Board

  Term of office

  Remunerated

  Sir Duncan Nichol

  3 years

  Yes

  David Henshaw

  3 years

  Yes

  Richard Rosser

  3 years

  Yes

  Angela Sarkis

  3 years

  Yes

  Re-offending
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make statement on levels of re-offending among prisoners with mental illness [155908]
  756W
  Paul Goggins
  There is no central record of re-offending by prisoners with mental illness.

  We do know that 6 per cent. of restricted patients under the Mental Health Act 1983 discharged in 1999 were reconvicted of a standard list offence within two years of discharge, and 1 per cent. of a grave offence.

  Restricted patients make up about a quarter of offenders dealt with by way of a hospital disposal in lieu of a prison sentence.

  Figures are not kept centrally for re-offending by unrestricted patients with hospital orders.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to monitor differences in the sentencing of offenders from different ethnic groups in(a) England and Wales and (b) London. [155955]

  Paul Goggins
  Section 95 Criminal Justice Act 1991 requires the Home Office to publish statistics annually to help those involved in the administration of justice avoid discrimination against any persons on the grounds of race or sex or any improper grounds. The first edition of what has become a series of publications on Race and the Criminal Justice System was published in 1992 including demographic data and prison statistics.

  The Home Office is monitoring sentences handed down by the Crown court in terms of the ethnicity of the person prosecuted. A similar programme of monitoring is being developed for magistrates courts. This data will be broken down into the 42 Local Criminal Justice areas (including London) and will also be available for England and Wales as a whole. It has already been published for a number of areas and will be published for other areas once it is of sufficient quality to be statistically acceptable as showing an accurate picture.

  The "Ethnic Minorities in the Criminal Courts: Perceptions of Fairness and Equality of Treatment" study published by the Department of Constitutional Affairs (Hood, Shute and Seemungal 2003) concludes that although perceptions have improved since previous studies, more work is needed to eliminate perceived discrimination. The report reveals that although there is no hard research to prove this one way or another, around two thirds of the complaints about racial bias concerned perceived inequitable sentencing, with Black and Minority Ethnic defendants believing they had received a harsher sentence than would have been handed down to a similarly placed white defendant—CJS professionals e.g. lawyers had a stronger perception still. This is likely to be a contributory factor to low BME confidence in respecting the rights of defendants.

  The CJS Race Unit will now work to establish whether there is any quantitative evidence of different sentencing between people in different BME and white populations while controlling for type of offence and other contributing or mitigating factors. If there is such evidence the Unit will consider actions to counter it, if not they will address the perception that there is

  757W
  differential sentencing. The Unit envisages awarding the research contract in April 2004. First results are then expected Spring 2005 with completion Spring 2006.

  Sex Offenders
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what programmes are in place to rehabilitate high risk sexual offenders; and what the reconviction rate is of offenders who have completed the programmes. [155339]

  Paul Goggins
  Both Her Majesty's Prison Service and the National Probation Service provide treatment programmes to challenge attitudes and beliefs which offenders use to justify their crimes and increase their understanding of the harm caused to victims. In addition new skills are acquired by offenders to enable them to recognise and deal more appropriately with high risk situations and high risk mood states on release. Details of all the programmes are contained in the Home Office publication "The Treatment and Risk Management of Sexual Offenders in Custody and in the Community", copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  This document also contains reconviction data on offenders who have completed the Prison Service programmes. Insufficient time has elapsed to collect similar data on the accredited community-based programmes.

  Shopworkers
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had on protecting shopworkers from violence; and if he will make a statement. [154658]

  Ms Blears [holding answer 12 February 2004]
  Any form of violence is totally unacceptable and must be dealt with accordingly. I fully understand the detrimental and damaging effect that crime against business has on the community

  My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary attended the "National Respect for Shop Workers Day" organised by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers' (USDAW) in September. The key aims were to demonstrate to the public that the Government, the retail industry and the retail trade union are campaigning together to tackle crime. The Government welcome the work USDAW has undertaken through its Freedom From Fear campaign to raise awareness of violence against shopworkers. The Government are tackling this issue, for example by:
  Providing funding for training seminars for small retailers as part of the 15 million Small Retailers in Deprived Areas Scheme.
  Holding a Business Crime forum for Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SME's) which was well represented by retailers.

  £ million

  Programme

  Original budget 2002–03

  Not spent in 2002–03

  C/F to 2003–04

  Budgeted for 2003–04

  Coalfields

  15

  0

  0

  22

  Community Chest

  14.98

  0.6

  1—

  25

  European Regional Development Fund Areas

  210.1

  25.2

  25.2

  2230.5

  Liveability Fund

  0

  0

  0

  7

  758W
  Encouraging employers to manage work-related violence in the same way as any health and safety issue. The Health and Safety Executive has published general guidance to help employers tackle work-related violence, including specific guidance for the retail sector. This can be accessed via their website www.hse.gov.uk.

  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) can also be used to protect shopworkers from violence. The orders can prohibit persons entering specified areas such as shopping centres, or prohibit persons engaging in specified anti-social acts eg shoplifting, verbally abusing shopworkers, writing graffiti on a shop, or prohibit persons approaching specified persons. Breach of an ABSO is a criminal offence attracting a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment.

  The number of people experiencing violence at work has actually fallen by 27 per cent. since 1999 according to the most recent British Crime Survey published on 27 January 2004.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Better Buildings Task Force
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on the appointment of representatives of the energy efficiency industry to his Better Buildings Task Force. [157025]

  Phil Hope
  Industry representation is essential for the successful delivery of the objectives of the Sustainable Buildings Task Group. That is why the Group contains representatives from the energy efficiency sector, as well as the volume house building, developer, water industry, and waste and timber sectors.

  Building Land (Havering)
  John Cryer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much Brownfield land is available for building in the London borough of Havering. [157327]

  Keith Hill
  The 2002 National Land Use Database of Previously Developed Land shows a total of 159 hectares of previously developed land that may be available for development in Havering. This includes 74 hectares of vacant or derelict land and buildings, and 85 hectares currently in use with the potential for development.

  Area-based Initiatives
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list for each area-based initiative for which his Department is responsible the amount(a) originally budgeted for 2002–03, (b) not spent in 2002–03, (c) carried forward to 2003–04 and (d) budgeted for 2003–04. [152794]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information is as follows.
  759W

  £ million

  Programme

  Original budget 2002–03

  Not spent in 2002–03

  C/F to 2003–04

  Budgeted for 2003–04

  Market Renewal Pathfinders

  25

  21.1

  21.1

  361.1

  Neighbourhood Management

  11

  0.3

  1—

  23

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  300

  4—

  4—

  400

  Neighbourhood Wardens/Street Wardens

  17.25

  0.4

  1—

  10

  New Deal for Communities

  186

  1.9

  1—

  265

  1 Allocations for both years in question are worked out annually on the basis of delivery plans from grant recipients. Where individual projects span two or more years across delivery plans these will be covered by the allocations given.

  2 This is the budget after the spring supplementary adjustments and includes EYF drawn down from prior years.

  3 This is inclusive of funds carried forward from 2002–03.

  4 There are no confirmed figures for Neighbourhood Renewal Fund expenditure in 2002–03. NRF Statements of Use are being analysed at present.

  Census (2001)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations have been made to(a) him and (b) the Office for National Statistics concerning the accuracy of the 2001 Census by (i) the London borough of Barnet, (ii) Westminster city council and (iii) Manchester city council; and if he will make a statement. [156489]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received a number of letters from Westminster city council and Manchester city council with regard to the population estimates based on the 2001 Census and has met with Manchester city council. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received previous correspondence from my hon. Friend concerning the accuracy of the 2001 Census.

  The Office for National Statistics has received a number of letters from Westminster city council, Manchester city council and the London borough of Barnet with regard to results of the 2001 Census, and population estimates based on these.

  The Office for National Statistics are involved in studies with Westminster city council and Manchester city council, comparing the 2001 Census address lists with administrative records. These studies are not yet complete, but a provisional adjustment to the 2001 population estimate for Manchester, based on the results of the address matching project, was released in November.

  Community Projects
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list projects funded by(a) Community Cohesion pathfinders, (b) Community Chest, (c) the Community Empowerment Fund and (d) the Community Champions Fund in each year from 2001–02 to 2005–06; what the budget was for each project in each year; how much funding his Department provided for each project in each year; and in which Government office of the region each project is located. [152914]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information is as follows.

  Community Cohesion Pathfinders (CCPs)

  The Community Cohesion Pathfinder areas (CCPs) are a joint initiative between the Home Office and the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  760W
  They are intended to pioneer programmes to break down barriers between the different community groups in given geographical areas. These groups may be arranged along social, ethnic, religious or even work-related lines.

  CCPs are managed by the Home Office's Community Cohesion Unit. The programme is under way in the following 14 areas:

  1. Bury metropolitan borough council

  2. Charnwood borough council

  3. East Lancashire Partnership (Lancashire county council, together with Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle and Rossendale borough councils)

  4. Kirklees metropolitan council

  5. Leicester city council

  6. Mansfield district council

  7. Middlesbrough council

  8. Peterborough city council

  9. Plymouth city council

  10. Rochdale metropolitan borough council

  11. Sandwell metropolitan borough council

  12. Stoke-on-Trent city council

  13. London borough of Southwark

  14. West London Alliance (London boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow).

  CCP funding runs from February 2003 to September 2004. The first 13 of the above areas receive £285,000 over this 17-month period. The West London Alliance receives £570,000, which reflects its coverage of a much larger area covered than any of the other Pathfinders.

  Community Chest (CC)

  Community Chest (CC) grants are intended to support projects that encourage greater community involvement in local activities within the 88 neighbourhood renewal areas of England. Locally appointed intermediary VCS bodies promote and deliver the programme at a local level.

  As information on individual projects is held at area level, a detailed list cannot be collated within the time available. Following are tables of CC funding paid by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to Government Offices in each of the English regions for the 2001–06 period, along with the number of projects funded.
  761W

  Region

  ODPM Community Chest funding(£)

  Number of Community Chest awards made

  Financial year 1: 2001–02

  East

  149,057

  16

  East Midlands

  709,181

  126

  London

  2,145,350

  613

  North East

  1,513,672

  389

  North West

  2,567,739

  535

  South East

  264,003

  60

  South West

  313,894

  52

  West Midlands

  1,107,346

  180

  Yorks and Humber

  1,300,516

  203

  Financial year 2:2002–03

  East

  223,586

  81

  East Midlands

  1,063,770

  441

  London

  3,218,024

  1,189

  North East

  2,164,318

  947

  North West

  3,851,661

  1,075

  South East

  396,004

  282

  South West

  470,842

  204

  West Midlands

  1,661,023

  612

  Yorks and Humber

  1,950,773

  1,004

  Financial year 3: 2003–04—Based on financial returns to the end of the third quarter of the financial year

  East

  341,916

  81

  East Midlands

  1,739,056

  467

  London

  5,313,331

  1,293

  North East

  3,549,043

  1,356

  North West

  6,490,702

  1,695

  South East

  585,151

  172

  South West

  729,480

  230

  West Midlands

  2,890,901

  567

  Yorks and Humber

  3,360,419

  916

  £

  Community Empowerment Fund Budget

  Region

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  East

  228,033

  228,033

  228,033

  228,033

  228,033

  East Midlands

  905,245

  905,245

  905,245

  905,245

  905,245

  London

  2,654,485

  2,654,485

  2,654,485

  2,654,485

  2,654,485

  North East

  1,824,502

  1,824,502

  1,824,502

  1,824,502

  1,824,502

  North West

  2,967,301

  2,967,301

  2,967,301

  2,967,301

  2,967,301

  South East

  436,573

  436,573

  436,573

  436,573

  436,573

  South West

  465,082

  465,082

  465,082

  465,082

  465,082

  West Midlands

  1,132,771

  1,132,771

  1,132,771

  1,132,771

  1,132,771

  Yorks and Humber

  1,386,008

  1,386,008

  1,386,008

  1,386,008

  1,386,008

  Community Champions Fund (CCF)

  CCF is an initiative of the Department for Education and Skills. It provides grants to individuals nationwide, which focus on the development of learning and skills. It helps to deliver this through its two main objectives:
  1. Developing the skills levels of individuals to enable them to act as leaders, animateurs and inspirational figures within the community;
  2. Encouraging these individuals to improve the involvement of communities in regeneration and learning activity.

  GOs deliver CCF through a number of intermediary organisations from the voluntary and community sector. The intermediaries promote and deliver the programme at a local level. As information on
  762W

  Region

  ODPM Community Chest funding(£)

  Number of Community Chest awards made

  Financial year 4: 2004–05—Projected number of awards

  East

  341,916

  81

  East Midlands

  1,739,056

  470

  London

  5,313,331

  1,063

  North East

  3,549,043

  1,200

  North West

  6,490,702

  1,695

  South East

  585,151

  172

  South West

  729,480

  230

  West Midlands

  2,890,901

  600

  Yorks and Humber

  3,360,419

  920

  Financial year 5: 2005–06—Projected number of awards

  East

  341,916

  81

  East Midlands

  1,739,056

  470

  London

  5,313,331

  1,063

  North East

  3,549,043

  1,200

  North East

  6,490,702

  1,695

  South East

  585,151

  172

  South West

  729,480

  230

  West Midlands

  2,890,901

  600

  Yorks and Humber

  3,360,419

  920

  Note:

  Figures for 2001–03 are annual baselines, as funding was allowed to roll over to the next year during this period. All funding figures include administration costs, which are limited to no more than 10 per cent.

  Community Empowerment Fund (CEF)

  CEF is not a project-based initiative. It funds the establishment and development of an effective community and voluntary sector infrastructure, the Community Empowerment Network (CEN), in each of the 88 neighbourhood renewal areas of England. CENs allow the VCS to play an active part in LSPs. Annual budgets for each English region are provided as follows.

  individual projects is held at area level, a detailed list cannot be collated within the time available. Overleaf are tables of CCF funding allocated by the DfES to Government Offices in each of the English regions for the 2001–04 period, along with the number of projects funded.

  Government office

  Budget for region(£000)

  Number of grants awarded

  Financial year 2001–02

  East of England

  246

  135

  West Midlands

  347

  215

  East Midlands

  261

  158

  North West

  364

  350

  North East

  277

  170

  763W

  Government office

  Budget for region(£000)

  Number of grants awarded

  Yorks and Humber

  317

  163

  South West

  235

  175

  South East

  267

  137

  London

  486

  189

  Total

  2,800,000

  1,692

  Financial year 2002–03

  East of England

  230

  131

  West Midlands

  324

  185

  East Midlands

  248

  142

  North West

  344

  197

  North East

  254

  145

  Yorks and Humber

  297

  170

  South West

  222

  127

  South East

  242

  138

  London

  464

  265

  Total1

  12,625,000

  11,500

  Financial year 2003–04: Only mid-year figures available

  East of England

  227

  80

  West Midlands

  302

  Late award panel

  East Midlands

  233

  40

  North West

  322

  117

  North East

  238

  58

  Yorks and Humber

  277

  38

  South West

  213

  67

  South East

  249

  18

  London

  475

  Late award panel

  Total1

  12,536,000

  1418

  1In 2003–04, DfES funded a national evaluation of the Community Champions Fund. During 2002—04, an additional 1,530 "You and Your Community" awards were supported by the Community Champions Fund, which provided the matched funding element of a Millennium Commission award, delivered by the Scarman Trust.

  Comprehensive Performance Assessment
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost was including staffing, management and support, for the Comprehensive Performance Assessment process in local government in 2003 for(a) the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, (b) the Audit Commission, the Improvement and Development Agency, (d) local authorities and (e) other agencies. [156688]

  Phil Hope
  The information requested is as follows:(a)The Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) process in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) in 2003 involved staff within the Office working directly on CPA, as well as a proportion of the time of staff across a wide range of other policy areas, and those at senior level, including Ministers with responsibility for local government policy. The total costs of the process will also have included a proportion of those relating to building, heating, lighting and computer equipment as well as stationery, postage and attending and arranging meetings and other events.

  It is not possible to identify the overall cost of all this activity. The total cost of staff working full-time on CPA in 2003 was approximately £166,000.

  (b)Details of the Audit Commission's costs in relation to the CPA process is an operational matter and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will ask the chief executive to write to the hon. Member and make a copy of that letter available in the Library of the House.
  764W
  Information in relation to the cost of the CPA process to the bodies listed at (c), (d) and (e) is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his latest estimate is of the costs of(a) council tax administration and (b) council tax benefit administration; and if he will make a statement. [156595]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's latest estimate based on 2003–04 Budget Estimate Returns from English local authorities is £337 million for council tax administration costs, and £235.7 million for council tax benefit administration costs. In 2003–04, council tax collection costs may include a small amount of NDR, rate (domestic and non-domestic) and community charge collection costs.

  Council Tenants
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many council tenants in each local authority in London have transferred to other properties owned by their local authority in each year since 1990; and how many moved into homes with fewer bedrooms. [156776]

  Keith Hill
  A table on the number of council tenants who have transferred to other properties owned by their local authority since 1990 by London borough has been made available in the Library of the Houses.

  This table also includes information on how many have moved into homes with fewer bedrooms since 1995 by London borough. Previous to 1995 this information was not collected centrally. All information is reported by local authorities on their annual Housing Investment Programme Statistical Returns.

  Elected Assemblies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the consultation period on the powers of elected assemblies began; when it will end; who is eligible to make representations; how many representations have been received to date; and which(a) individuals and (b) organisations have made representations so far. [156999]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The core powers and responsibilities the Government proposes for elected regional assemblies are set out in our 2002 White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions" (Cm 5511).

  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear to the House on 11 February 2004, Official Report, column 1496. we will be holding regional 'hearings' about the proposed powers of elected assemblies. The hearings will give people an opportunity to consider and discuss our proposals, and enable us to learn more about what people think about these issues.

  There will be three hearings in each of the three northern regions over the next two months. The first hearings will be held on 4 March in Berwick and Blackburn. Details of the other hearings will be announced in due course and Members of Parliament will be notified of hearings in their region
  765W
  We are also interested in views from people who are unable to attend the hearings, and information about elected assemblies' powers will be available shortly to help inform such views. Copies of this information will also be placed in the House Library.

  Electoral Registration
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much each local authority has spent on(a) voter registration and (b) promoting voter registration in each of the last five years. [156549]

  Phil Hope
  A table with data on the Net Current Expenditure on voter registration for 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2001–02 and 2002–03 has been made available in the Library of the House. Data for 2000–01 is not available as the data was not separately identified.

  Data on promoting voter registration are not collected centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Fire Sprinklers
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to amend the building regulations in order to require the installation of ire sprinkler systems in new public leisure facilities. [156813]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is keen to improve fire safety by all reasonable means and sprinklers are part of a package of measures that can be used in buildings. Other measures include the installation of fire alarm and fire detection systems and the provision of compartmentation that restricts the spread of fire within buildings by means of sub-dividing it into compartments, separated from one another by walls and/or floors of fire resisting construction.

  In the case of places of assembly, which would include public leisure facilities, the guidance document that supports the fire safety aspects of the Building Regulations, known as Approved Document B, already limits the size of fire compartments to a floor area no larger than 2,000 square metres in multi-storey buildings. These compartments can be increased to 4,000 square metres where sprinklers are provided.

  However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently commenced a review of the fire safety aspects of the Building Regulations and we will be considering the role that sprinklers can play in all buildings, including places of assembly, and deciding whether the current thresholds in the guidance should be amended or indeed new ones introduced.

  Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 22 January 2004,Official Report, column 1464W, on housing, how many units built or acquired with social housing grant by (a) the Housing Corporation, (b) local authorities and (c) registered social landlords, without public subsidy, in each year since 1990 were (i) self-contained units and (ii) bedspaces. [156875]
  766W
  Keith Hill
  A breakdown of the number of self-contained dwellings and bedspaces is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 22 January 2004, Official Report, column 1464W, on housing, how many units built or acquired with social housing grant by(a) the Housing Corporation, (b) local authorities and (c) registered social landlords, without public subsidy, in each year since 1990 were (i) social housing for rent and (ii) low cost home ownership. [156876]

  Keith Hill
  I will write to my hon. Friend with further details of the dwellings built or acquired with social housing grant by the Housing Corporation and local authorities for rent and low cost home ownership. A breakdown between social rent and low cost home ownership dwellings provided by registered social landlords without public subsidy is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister who has been commissioned to undertake the research projects into(a) learning the lessons from the Estate Renewal Challenge Fund, (b) guidance on houses in multiple occupation amenities, (c) the effectiveness of disabled faculties grant administration and (d) key worker housing; what the terms of reference are for each project; and when work on each will be completed. [156877]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested is as follows:

  a. Heriot-Watt University have been commissioned to undertake the research project: Learning the Lessons from Estate Renewal Challenge Fund (ERCF). The terms of reference are to assess progress on the individual ERCF schemes and identify transferable lessons from ERCF for the wider stock transfer programme as well as other housing investment and regeneration programmes. The study should complete in May 2004.

  b. The research on guidance on houses in multiple occupation amenities has not been taken forward.

  c. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, jointly with the Department of Health, is reviewing the Disabled Facilities Grant Programme in the context of the Spending Review 2004. The terms of reference for that review, and the scope of any research work that may need to be undertaken as part of it. are still being considered. The review will report later this year.

  d. Key worker housing. Heriot-Watt University have been commissioned to evaluate the Starter Homes Initiative (SHI). The study's main aims are to evaluate the effectiveness of the SHI, assess its impact, and give recommendations to improve future provision. The report is expected to be complete in October 2004.

  NOP World were commissioned to explore recruitment and retention issues and housing preferences of key public sector workers. The study's main aim was to identify key public sector worker's future intentions (both employment and housing), the extent to which housing costs and the availability of suitable housing are affecting career choices and their preferences for different types of housing. The study was completed in December 2004.
  767W
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will commission an assessment of the impact in London of Good Practice on Managing Under-occupation published by his Department in April 2001. [156775]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has only just received the data from the Survey of English Housing for the first three quarters of 2003–04 which we would like to take into assessing the impact to date of the good practice on Managing Under-occupation on social housing in London. I will write to my hon. Friend once the results of this exercise have been collated, and will make the information available in the Library of the House. In the light of this information I shall consider how best to monitor the position for the future.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what circumstances money from previously committed Housing Corporation grant schemes can be ringfenced for remodelled schemes. [156869]

  Keith Hill
  Grant from previous funded housing schemes may be recycled into new schemes, including remodelled schemes. Such schemes must meet the current Housing Corporation criteria for giving grant, which includes meeting regional and local priorities.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether, after 1 May, citizens of the EU accession states(a) without dependent children and (b) with dependent children will be entitled to council housing provision in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [154040]

  Keith Hill
  Housing is a devolved matter and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's remit only extends to England.

  From 1 May citizens of the EU accession states who do not have a right to reside here because they are not self-sufficient (that is, they do not have sufficient resources so as to avoid being a burden on the social assistance system) will not be eligible for social housing. This will apply regardless of whether they have dependent children.

  Nationals from the eight Eastern European accession countries who are employed and comply with the Home Office's worker registration scheme will have an unconditional right to reside here and will be eligible for social housing. Nationals from the other Accession countries who are workers will also be eligible for social housing.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research was undertaken on problems created by summertime overheating of lightweight buildings prior to the decision to encourage registered social landlords to use factory-built houses. [156640]

  Phil Hope
  No specific research into summertime overheating of lightweight buildings was commissioned. The Government and the construction industry were aware of research reports from hotter countries of problems of overheating that can occur in houses of lightweight construction, but this was not considered to be relevant to the decision to encourage the use of modern methods of construction in England and Wales. Nevertheless, the issue of overheating for all types of buildings is being addressed in the review of the Building Regulations announced in the Energy White Paper.
  768W
  Andy King
  To ask, the Deputy Prime Minister what powers he has to enforce appropriate standards in the housing departments of local authorities. [156114]

  Keith Hill
  The Local Government Act 1999 provides powers that can be exercised if my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is satisfied that a local authority is failing to comply with part 1 of the Act. The provisions of the Act requires that services, including housing services, are:responsive to the needs of citizens
  of a high quality and cost effective; and
  air and accessible to all who need them.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will exercise intervention powers under section 15 of the Local Government Act and other comparable legislation only when there is clear evidence that an authority is failing either to discharge its functions adequately or failing to meet its statutory obligations. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's powers are wide ranging, from directing the council to prepare a plan or perform a specified function through to removing specified functions from the council and appointing a nominee to exercise them.

  Comprehensive Performance Assessments are in place to help identify local authorities' strengths and weaknesses, and provide a basis for improvement planning which the duty of best value confers.

  Land Regeneration Trust
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress is being made towards establishing the Land Regeneration Trust. [155849]

  Keith Hill
  English Partnerships, Groundwork, the Forestry Commission and the Environment Agency have jointly submitted to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister proposals for the establishment of a Land Restoration Trust. The purpose of the Trust would be to facilitate the remediation and management of brownfield sites that are not suitable for development, turning them into valuable new public open space and ensuring sustainable long-term management. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently discussing the detail of the plan with the partners and with other Government Departments. Hopefully it will be possible to conclude these discussions shortly.

  Land/Waste Reclamation
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Building Research Establishment on land and waste reclamations. [156386]

  Phil Hope
  The Building Research Establishment (BRE) has carried out research for the Buildings Division of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on protecting buildings from landfill gas. Buildings Division has also funded BRE to support widescale monitoring of research and guidance relating to contaminated land and to support the revision of British Standards relating to the waste management in buildings.
  769W

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what grants that fall outside the revenue support grant were awarded to local authorities in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley by his Department in each of the last three years. [156512]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A table made available in the Library of the House shows the grants within aggregate external finance distributed to local authorities in Lancashire in each of the last three years, except for general grant support (Revenue Support Grant and National Non Domestic Rates). For 2003–04, this information is taken from the information supplied by the local authorities to the Office on the Revenue Account (Special Grant) form, which gives details of their budgeted revenue grants. For the earlier years, this information is taken

  £000

  Grant

  issuing Depart-ment

  Dorset

  Dorset Police

  Bourne-mouth

  Poole

  Christ-church

  East Dorset

  North Dorset

  Purbeck

  West Dorset

  Weymouth and Portland

  Civil Defence

  CO

  0

  0

  70

  62

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  National Parks and Broads

  DEFRA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Waste Re-Cycling Challenge

  DEFRA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  196

  0

  0

  70

  0

  0

  Childcare

  DfES

  989

  0

  455

  415

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Excellence in Cities

  DfES

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leadership Incentive

  DfES

  0

  0

  350

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  School Standards

  DfES

  6,290

  0

  2,005

  1,904

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Standards Fund

  DfES

  7,840

  0

  2,150

  2,913

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Teachers' Pay Reform

  DfES

  4,876

  0

  2,081

  1,508

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  GLA Transport Grant

  DfT

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Metropolitan Railway Passenger Services

  DfT

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rural Bus Challenge

  DfT

  130

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rural Bus Subsidy

  DfT

  865

  0

  0

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Urban Bus Challenge

  DfT

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Access and Systems Capacity

  DoH

  1,346

  0

  650

  457

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  AIDS/HIV Support

  DoH

  0

  0

  87

  24

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

  DoH

  292

  0

  141

  95

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Carers

  DoH

  673

  0

  352

  248

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Children's Services

  DoH

  2,377

  0

  1,693

  1,102

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Deferred Payments

  DoH

  517

  0

  210

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Delayed Discharges

  DoH

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mental Health

  DoH

  869

  0

  210

  319

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  National Training Strategy

  DoH

  0

  0

  34

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Performance

  DoH

  742

  0

  361

  229

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Preserved Rights

  DoH

  3,504

  0

  3,200

  1,203

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Residential Allowance

  DoH

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Teenage Pregnancy Local Implementation

  DoH

  63

  0

  0

  23

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Training Support

  DoH

  342

  0

  169

  126

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Council Tax Benefit Administration

  DWP

  0

  0

  416

  275

  98

  124

  97

  84

  178

  141

  Housing Benefit Administration

  DWP

  0

  0

  712

  331

  126

  153

  142

  97

  211

  253

  Workstep

  DWP

  574

  0

  415

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  HB and CTB administration due to New Tax Credits

  DWP

  0

  0

  36

  19

  7

  9

  8

  6

  14

  12

  HB and CTB administration due to Pension Credits

  DWP

  0

  0

  89

  62

  27

  31

  25

  21

  45

  29

  HB and CTB administration due to New Tax Credits Special Subsidy Provision

  DWP

  0

  0

  10

  5

  2

  2

  2

  2

  4

  3

  HB and CTB administration due to Pension Credit set-up

  DWP

  0

  0

  15

  9

  5

  6

  5

  5

  8

  7

  Airwaves Communication Project

  HO

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Asylum Seekers

  HO

  176

  0

  1,170

  59

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Basic Command Units Challenge Fund

  HO

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Community Support Officers

  HO

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Counter Terrorism

  HO

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Crime Fighting Fund

  HO

  0

  2,298

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  London and South East Allowance

  HO

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Police Negotiating Board

  HO

  0

  430

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rural Policing Fund

  HO

  0

  442

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Street Crime Initiative

  HO

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Magistrates Courts

  LCD

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Local Public Service Agreement Performance Reward

  ODPM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  ODPM

  0

  0

  400

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Neighbourhood Wardens

  ODPM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Planning Delivery

  ODPM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  75

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  The Private Finance Initiative

  ODPM

  1,893

  2,915

  1,761

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Supporting People (Administration)

  ODPM

  349

  0

  120

  177

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Supporting People (Programme)

  ODPM

  7,475

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other inside

  0

  0

  0

  282

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  42,182

  6,085

  19,352

  11,894

  535

  478

  290

  285

  599

  445

  770W
  from the information supplied by councils on the Revenue Outturn (Income from Specific and Special Grants) form.

  Jim Knight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what grants were awarded to local authorities in Dorset by his Department in financial year 2003–04 that fall outside the revenue support grant. [156210]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The following table shows the grants within aggregate external finance distributed to authorities in Dorset in 2003–04, except for general grant support (Revenue Support Grant and National Non Domestic Rates). This information is taken in the main from the information supplied by the local authorities to the Office on the Revenue Account (Special Grant) form for 2003–04, which gives details of their budgeted revenue grants, although it also takes account of additional information supplied by the Department for Works and Pensions.
  771W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to set up a separate formula spending settlement for waste; and what discussions he has had on this issue with the Local Government Association. [156385]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have no plans to set up a separate formula spending share for waste. In the course of the review of formula grant distribution, which led to the new formulae introduced for 2003–04, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister examined possible options in consultation with local government. Analyses undertaken demonstrated a very poor fit between expenditure levels on waste and any combination of plausible indicators.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with local authorities in(a) the North East, (b) the North West and (c) Yorkshire and Humber about how the costs of local government reorganisation will be funded. [157024]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None, but as previously explained in the answer given on 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 32W, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be discussing the cost of reorganisation with local government in due course. A working group has been established to look at costs and the wider practical implications of reorganisation. Its first meeting will take place on 9 March. The Local Government Association is part of the group.

  Budget

  NDC Partnership

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  West Ham and Plaistow

  10,195,000

  7,600,000

  6,500,000

  Shoreditch

  3,970,000

  3,900,000

  3,900,000

  Aylesbury

  5,500,000

  7,800,000

  8,500,000

  Ocean

  5,000,000

  7,900,000

  8,500,000

  South Kilburn

  3,438,900

  5,000,000

  6,000,000

  North Fulham

  6,500,000

  6,200,000

  6,200,000

  EC1

  4,901,000

  6,300,000

  7,400,000

  Clapham Park

  3,500,000

  6,700,000

  7,800,000

  New Cross Gate

  5,000,000

  5,400,000

  6,300,000

  Seven Sisters

  3,300,000

  5,500,000

  7,000,000

  London total

  51,304,900

  62,300,000

  68,100,000

  EB4U,Brighton

  8,000,000

  6,600,000

  6,600,000

  Thornhill, Southampton

  4,000,000

  5,800,000

  6,800,000

  South East total

  12,000,000

  12,400,000

  13,400,000

  Devonport,Plymouth

  4,700,000

  5,800,000

  6,800,000

  Community at Heart,Bristol

  6,396,486

  7,000,000

  7,000,000

  South West total

  11,096,486

  12,800,000

  13,800,000

  Marsh Farm, Luton

  4,698,000

  5,240.000

  5,680,000

  North Earlham and Marlpit, Norwich

  5,800,000

  5,280,000

  4,928,000

  Eastern Region total

  10,498,000

  10,520,000

  10,608,000

  Braunstone, Leicester

  13,949,113

  9,000,000

  6,000,000

  Radford and Hyson Green, Nottingham

  7,500,000

  8,500,000

  7,800,000

  Derwent, Derby

  3,043,139

  5,040,000

  5,880,000

  East Midlands total

  24,492,252

  22,540,000

  19,680,000

  Greets Green, Sandwell

  4,639,632

  7,800,000

  7,800,000

  Blakenall, Bloxwich East and Leamore, Walsall

  6,000,000

  6,200,000

  7,200,000

  Coventry

  7,500,000

  7,600,000

  7,600,000

  772W

  Mobile Phone Masts
  John Cryer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his powers to overturn decisions by the Planning Inspectorate to grant permission for mobile phone telephone masts. [157324]

  Keith Hill
  Planning Inspectors act in a quasi-judicial role, under delegated powers, for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Once the Inspector issues a decision letter on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, that is his decision. If a party to the matter is dissatisfied, their recourse is through an appeal to the Court.

  New Deal
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what budgets have been allocated for(a) each New Deal for Communities partnership and (b) the New Deal for Communities in total for each financial year from 2003–04 to 2005–06, broken down by English region. [156473]

  Yvette Cooper
  The New Deal for Communities Programme has 39 NDC Partnerships and £2 billion has been committed to them over the 10 years of the NDC Programme. The 17 Round 1 Partnerships entered their delivery phase in 2000–01 and the 22 Round 2 Partnerships entered their delivery phase in 2001–02. Figures for 2003–04 to 2005–06 are tabled as follows. These figures are the budgets allocated to each NDC during the re-profiling exercise, which took place in early 2002.

  The NDC budget is ring fenced and has end year flexibility, so the figures for 2004–05 onwards are estimates at this stage, and may be subject to change.
  773W

  Budget

  NDC Partnership

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  All Saints and Blakenhall, Wolverhampton

  2,000,000

  5,300,000

  7,000,000

  Kings Norton, Birmingham

  5,000,000

  7,000,000

  7,500,000

  Aston, Birmingham

  5,300,000

  6,000.000

  7,000,000

  West Midlands total

  30,439,632

  39,900,000

  44,100,000

  Doncaster Central

  5,000,000

  6,200,000

  7,300,000

  Burngreave, Sheffield

  4,000,000

  6,200,000

  7,800,000

  Bradford Trident

  8,500,000

  7,000,000

  6,000,000

  Preston Road, Hull

  7,800,000

  7,700,000

  6,500,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside total

  25,300,000

  27,100,000

  27,600,000

  North Huyton. Knowsley

  7,645,000

  7,800,000

  7,800,000

  Kensington, Liverpool

  6,132,000

  8,000,000

  8,500,000

  East Manchester

  21,245,108

  4,600,000

  2,000,000

  Hattershaw and Fitton Hill, Oldham

  5,580,000

  7,500,000

  7,500,000

  Charlestown and Lower Kersal, Salford

  6,249,000

  7,420,000

  7,420,000

  Heywood, Rochdale

  5,692,600

  6,200,000

  7,280,000

  North West total

  52,543,708

  41,520,000

  40,500,000

  West Central Hartlepool

  5,500,000

  6,500,000

  7,500,000

  Newcastle Westgate

  5,500,000

  7,600,000

  8,200,000

  West Middlesbrough

  7,000,000

  7,200,000

  7,200,000

  Back on the Map, Sunderland

  5,500,000

  6,466,000

  7,500,000

  North East total

  23,500,000

  27,766,000

  30,400,000

  Overall total

  241,174,978

  256,846,000

  268,188,000

  Non-domestic Rate Pool
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the national non-domestic rate pool. [156822]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The non-domestic rates are a national tax on the occupation of property and the billing and collection of the rates is undertaken locally.

  The rates revenue is collected on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister who pays it into the national non-domestic rates pool. The revenue from the pool is then re-distributed to all local authorities (including county councils, Police and Fire) as part of the financial settlement to local authorities.

  The amount a local billing authority receives in a distribution from the pool is not necessarily the same as the amount it contributed to the pool. Distributions from the pool are calculated on the basis of domestic population in the local authority area not on the number of business ratepayers or business rates revenue.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money was collected in 2003–04 from businesses in Gloucester in non-domestic rates; and how much of this was passed on to(a) Gloucester city council and (b) Gloucestershire county council. [156823]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A total of £129,720,708 was collected in non-domestic rates from businesses in Gloucestershire in 2003–04 of which Gloucester city council collected £34,588,861, under the national non-domestic rates allocation system, council receipts are related to population, rather than to the amount raised in their area. In the case of Gloucestershire, £3,836,122 was passed on to Gloucester city council and Gloucestershire county council received £151,436,097.
  774W

  Postal Voting
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was spent by each local authority on(a) postal vote registration and (b) advertising postal voting in each of the last five years. [156547]

  Phil Hope
  Information on expenditure by local authorities on postal vote registration and advertising postal voting is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost was of each(a) advertisement, (b) regional visit, (c) publication and (d) media broadcast in connection with the information campaign on regional assemblies. [157026]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 149W and 6 January 2004, Official Report, column 342W.

  Social Rented Sector (London)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of homes in the social rented sector in London which are(a) one-bedroom above the bedroom standard and (b) two or more bedrooms above the bedroom standard. [156777]

  Keith Hill
  Using data from the Survey of English Housing for the years 1999–2000 to 2002–03, the estimated number of households in the social rented sector in London that are one bedroom above the "bedroom standard" is 170,000 (i.e. 20 per cent. of
  775W
  households). The estimated number that are two or more bedrooms above the standard is 60,000 (i.e. 7 per cent.)

  Starter Home Initiative
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many key workers in(a) England and (b) London the Starter Home Initiative has helped to buy a home since the scheme was launched. [156562]

  Keith Hill
  By mid-February 2004, 7,500 key workers in England (including over 3,500 in London) had been helped to buy a home under the Starter Home Initiative.

  Tenancy Deposits
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of tenants who did not have their deposits returned at the end of their tenancy in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [157309]

  Keith Hill:
  The following table shows for the last three years for which information is available, the estimated figures for the number of tenancies where the deposit was withheld (in full or in part) unreasonably in the view of the ex-tenant. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not sought to obtain the view of the landlord/agent.

  Tenancies where ex-tenant stated that deposit was unreasonably withheld: England

  Thousand

  2000–01

  112

  2001–02

  99

  2002–03

  104

  Average

  105

  As these estimates, which were derived from the Survey of English Housing, are subject to considerable sampling error no conclusion should be drawn about the trend.

  Over the three-year period these retained deposits represented 21 per cent. of all completed tenancies where a deposit was paid.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that tenants receive their deposits back at the end of their tenancy; and if he will make a statement. [157310]

  Keith Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the information given during the Standing Committee E on the afternoon of 24 February 2004,Official Report, columns 704–11.

PRIME MINISTER

  IBM
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 11 February 2004,Official Report, column 1471W, on the Civil Service, whether he had been informed that IBM were subject to investigation by the Special Compliance Office of Inland Revenue in 1997; whether the then Cabinet Secretary's application declared that IBM UK were subject to Special
  776W
  Compliance Office investigation in 1997; when enquiries were made on IBM's standing of (a) Inland Revenue and (b) Customs and Excise as part of the approval process for the Cabinet Secretary's application to join IBM's UK advisory board; when the Prime Minister was informed that IBM were subject to Inland Revenue investigation; and when the former Cabinet Secretary advised the Prime Minister that he had resigned from IBM's UK advisory board. [156522]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 11 February 2004,Official Report, column 1471W and the answer provided by the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 2 February 2004, Official Report, column 713W.

  In accordance with established procedures, Ministers are not informed of investigations into specific companies by either the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise.

  The then Cabinet Secretary submitted an application under the Business Appointment rules in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 4.3 of the Civil Service Management Code, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. There is no requirement on former civil servants to advise me that they have relinquished an outside appointment.

  House of Lords
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future of People's Peers. [157978]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. MacKinlay) on 15 January 2003,Official Report, column 632W.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister whether it is his policy to press for the return to the people of Iraq of unallocated resources in the hands of the UN Compensation Commission. [157059]

  The Prime Minister
  The United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) was established in 1991 to assess and pay claims in compensation for losses as a result of Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The UNCC has completed more than 98 per cent. of its claims work and it is the UK Government's position that this work should be completed.

  UN Security Council Resolution 1483 (22 May 2003) decided that 5 per cent. of Iraqi oil revenues would be deposited in the UNCC fund to meet awards. This will continue unless an internationally recognised, representative Government of Iraq and the Governing Council of the UNCC decide otherwise.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Bush on the allegation that Saddam Hussein attempted to procure uranium from Africa. [157136]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 15 July 2003,Official Report, column 174W.
  777W
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister what reports he has received that Iraq assembled and tested a long range artillery shell packed with irradiated zirconium. [157577]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister whether British officials have visited Saddam Hussein since his capture by the United States authorities. [158031]

  The Prime Minister
  No British officials have visited Saddam Hussein since his capture

  Ministerial Speeches
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many speeches(a) the Minister without Portfolio, (b) the Leader of the House of Lords and (c) he made between 9 June 2003 and 1 February 2004: and where a copy of each speech can be obtained. [156142]

  The Prime Minister
  I and members of the Government make a number of speeches on a wide range of domestic and international issues including Iraq, Europe and public services. A list of all speeches by the Government is not maintained centrally.

  Copies of my speeches are available on the Number 10 website.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio and my noble and right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House of Lords have both made public speeches in this period. These are available from the Cabinet Office Press Office.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what action has been taken by the UK Government to monitor the activities of Abdul Qadeer Khan since he was a research student with access to URENCO, with particular reference to the matters raised in the debate of 18 December 1979,Official Report, column 554 ff. [154969]

  The Prime Minister
  We have for many years been gathering information on the private network of suppliers of nuclear components operating across many countries and hinging on the activities of Dr. A Q Khan. The nature of this network is now well known to us and we, in co-operation with the US and other Governments have been engaged in closing down this network.

  Recruitment Advertising
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Prime Minister what his Office's expenditure on recruitment advertising was in each of the last three years, broken down by publication; and what proportion of such expenditure was(a) to advertise vacant posts and (b) in the form of other general recruitment advertising. [155532]

  The Prime Minister
  The cost for advertising vacant posts in my Office: in 2001 £1,667; in 2002 £11,932; and, in 2003 it was £12,964. These were to fill vacancies in a number of units including information technology, security and the correspondence unit.
  778W
  A difference in costs may occur because of the number of vacant posts advertised, the number of publications in which the advert is placed, the duration of the advert and the nature of the vacancy, for example specialist posts in information technology.

  The adverts were published in a variety of media including the national, local and specialist press.

  No expenditure was used for other general recruitment advertising.

  Secondments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister what secondments(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Deloitte & Touche, (c) Ernst & Young and (d) KPMG have made to his Office since 2001; for what (i) periods and (ii) tasks the secondments were made; whether secondments of staff from his Office have been made to those firms; and for what (A) periods and (B) tasks. [156914]

  The Prime Minister
  Since 2001, no secondments have been made to or from my Office to these firms.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the secondees from outside organisations working at 10 Downing Street, stating in each case(a) the name of the person, (b) the name of the organisation, (c) the post held and (d) the start and finish dates of the secondment; and which are involved in drafting parliamentary answers. [158050]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government departments are responsible for(a) information on and (b) preparation against the use of radiological material as a terrorist device; and what expenditure on decontamination equipment there has been in the last two years. [157056]

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Office is responsible for crisis and consequence management co-ordination across central Government in the event of such a terrorist attack.

  Information on and preparation against the use of radiological material by terrorists involves many Government Departments and agencies. Protective security against the use of radiological material as a terrorist device is the responsibility of the Home Office. International non-proliferation of radiological material for terrorist means is the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  The other Departments and agencies that would have a role include the Department of Health; the Health Protection Agency (particularly the National Radiological Protection Board); the Ministry of Defence, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the Health and Safety Executive; HM Customs and Excise; Department for Trade and Industry and the Department for Transport.

  Over the past two years the Government have made available £54.4 million for investment in decontamination equipment for the Fire Service, Ambulance Service and Accident and Emergency Departments.

DEFENCE

  Reserve Forces Call-out Order
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  A new call-out order has been made under Section 56 of the Reserve forces Act 1996 so that reservists may continue to be called out to support operations in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The order will take effect from 1 March 2004, the date the previous order expires. There are no plans to call-out reservists compulsorily under this order as it is expected that the small numbers needed will be met through volunteers for service in those countries.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Falkland Islands
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  I made a statement to this House on airlinks between the Falklands and Argentina,Official Report, 19 January 2004, 51WS. I would like to report on developments since then.

  I travelled to Argentina on 16–17 February on a pre-planned bilateral visit. I held talks on a wide range of international, regional and bilateral issues. The question of airlinks featured in my talks with the Argentine Foreign Minister, Dr Rafael Bielsa. The talks were frank and constructive and we made some progress. Some proposals were discussed which we each agreed to look at further. These proposals primarily focused on temporary arrangements for charter flights for 2004. I made it clear that any arrangements would need to be acceptable to the Falkland Islanders.

  Regrettably, shortly following my visit, an article appeared in an Argentine newspaper, giving details of my talks and wrongly asserting that a deal on airlinks had been agreed. As I have indicated, this was not the case.
  74WS
  I spoke subsequently to Falkland Councillors. They concluded that the proposals for temporary arrangements did not meet their concerns. However, they agreed that we should continue to discuss the issue with the Argentine Government with a view to securing a permanent solution to the question of charter flights rather than having further temporary arrangements.

  We are now taking this forward with the Argentine Government, with the full agreement of Councillors. I will keep the House informed of progress.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  Afghanistan remains a high priority for the Government. A lot has been achieved during the past two years. Around 3 million refugees have been helped to return to Afghanistan. Improvements have been made in education, with more than 4 million children back at school. Some 37 per cent. of pupils are now girls, up from 5 per cent. in 2001. Some 12 million children have been immunised against polio and 16 million against measles since 2002, saving 30,000 lives. Women are increasingly taking part in politics and the new constitution guarantees women 25 per cent. of seats at the new parliament and equal rights and duties before the law. But there are still challenges ahead.

  As part of the UK's continuing commitment to Afghanistan I will be announcing, at the donor conference taking place in Berlin on 31 March and 1 April, an increase in our assistance to at least £500 million over five years. This represents an increase of 150 per cent. on our original commitment for the reconstruction of Afghanistan made in Tokyo in January 2002 to provide £200 million over these five years (the financial years 2002/03–2006/07). So far we have provided £110.5 million of this. This new pledge will include at least £75 million a year for reconstruction, plus assistance for counter-narcotics and conflict prevention.

  One of the major challenges Afghanistan faces is security, particularly in the south and east of the country, and the need to tackle the drugs trade. The UK is working to support the Afghan police and helping to build a new Afghan National Army. We are also assisting with the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former combatants. Our new financial commitment will help to address all these issues.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

  Parliament and Local Government: Representation of Women
  Baroness Galeasked Her Majesty's Government:
  What measures they are taking to increase the representation of women in the House of Commons and local government to a level more like that seen in the elections to the National Assembly for Wales in 2003.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government are committed to working towards gender equality throughout society, including in political life, and we are delighted that the people of Wales have chosen to elect women to 50 per cent of seats in the National Assembly for Wales. To facilitate progress towards increasing women's representation in government, we introduced the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, which allows political parties to take positive measures towards women's increased participation.
  Baroness Gale: My Lords, I say thank you and diolch yn fawr to my noble friend. As everyone knows, Welsh is the language of heaven and I am very pleased to bring a touch of heaven to your Lordships' House.
  My noble friend is aware that the Welsh Assembly is the only legislature in the world to have women as 50 per cent of its members. Is she further aware that the Cabinet in the Welsh Assembly has a majority of women and is, again, the only such institution in the world to have such a majority? Bearing in mind that, since 1918, only 253 women have been elected to the House of Commons and that only a minority of women serve in local government, does she agree that drastic measures are needed to ensure that the percentage of women in local government and the House of Commons is increased? If such measures are not taken, we will probably have to wait several centuries. Some of us will not be able to hang around that long.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on her perseverance and because it is St David's Day. It is a great achievement for Wales to have the first elected legislature anywhere with 50 per cent representation by women. We in the House of Lords can be quite proud of our record. Seven out of the 21 members of the Labour Front Bench are women, and the figures are 10 out of 32 for
  434
  the Conservatives and 11 out of 37 for the Liberal Democrats. Opportunities are certainly being taken in this House.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I declare a long-time interest in the 300 Group, of which I am a member and was an executive officer for many years. Does the noble Baroness agree with the policy about which I used to say, "We don't want any woman elected just because she's a woman, but we don't want her rejected because she's a woman"? Does she further agree that most constituencies want and deserve the very best candidate to be their MP, whatever their religion, race or gender? Our policies at least produced the first female Leader of the House of Lords and the first female Prime Minister.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree that we want people of merit and quality. We think that we have achieved that; the Labour Government have an extremely good record in that regard.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if one looks across the legislatures of the democratic world, one finds that in those countries that have a form of proportional representation women—and, indeed, ethnic minorities—do better than in those countries with first past the post, such as this country and the United States?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that has been a hotly contentious issue for a number of years. I cannot necessarily agree with the noble Lord, but I understand why he says so.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us whether women in the National Assembly for Wales are under-representative of the proportion of male to female adult voters in Wales?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not believe that that is so, although I understand why the noble Lord would say that. Roughly 50 per cent of the population is male and roughly 50 per cent female, and the noble Lord will say that it would be disproportionate if the Welsh Assembly had more women than men. If one looks at quality and merit, the figures are clear.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness misunderstood my question. I was asking whether women were under-represented, not over-represented, in the National Assembly.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not believe that they are, but I shall write to the noble Lord if I am wrong about that.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, further to my noble friend's question about proportional representation, the proof is in the fact that the

  435
  National Assembly for Wales has an element of proportional representation. That is probably why it has done so well in terms of the number of women elected to it.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, but it is really the policy that has been implemented—the positive action measures taken, the political parties, and the primary use of twinning by Labour, which was very successful. No country has ever achieved a significant increase in women's representation without positive action. The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 allowed that positive action to be taken, and Wales has demonstrated what can be done if one tries.
  Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it might be an idea to set some targets in the matter? They should not be about positive discrimination, although targets are popular with this Government. Will they also compare the number of women in both Houses and local government with those in the top 100 FTSE companies?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says about targets. I also hear many on the Benches behind me saying that the most effective methodology would be to join Labour. If that is a target, I endorse it.
  Lord Brookman: My Lords, I am somewhat loath to rise on this Question, because I worked in the political arena of Wales with the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, or Anita Gale as she was then known, and she used to frighten the living daylights out of me. Is the Minister aware that Wales is known as the "mother state"? In other words, "mam" has always been completely in charge.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, only my noble friend could say that.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, without in any way wishing to disparage the quality of women in this House or anywhere else, is the Minister aware that the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, was not in the form of a question, contrary to the conventions of the House?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness asked three questions and she enabled us to have the benefit of a great deal of information in between them.
  Baroness Gale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most of the women elected to the Welsh Assembly were elected under the first-past-the-post system and not by the list system?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a valuable point and that is why it is policies and their implementation that make a difference and enable those policies to be fair.

  Student Loans
  2.44 p.m
  Baroness Greengrossasked Her Majesty's Government:
  What plans they have to amend the rules for student loans so as to benefit those aged 54 and over and part-time students.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the age limit is 50 for eligible students meeting the residence requirements. Those aged 50 to 54 at the start of their course can also apply for a student loan, provided that they plan to return to work after finishing their course. We already cancel loans at the age of 65 and have no plans to change the age restrictions.
  Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply, but I have to say that I am extremely disappointed in it. The Economic Affairs Select Committee of this House recently concluded that student loans were blatantly ageist. Given that people live longer and will have longer working lives, how can the Government's current policies really encourage lifelong learning?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness. However, in our proposed changes that are currently before the House of Commons there will be a 25-year debt write-off and the existing write-off at the age of 65 will continue. The proposed new higher education grant will also have no age limit attached to it, which is important. There are many instances regarding vocational training, further education and so on, where we have a good story to tell in terms of supporting older learners.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, will my noble friend comment on the work of the Open University in providing education for people of all ages at a price that is within peoples' pockets?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, indeed, I pay enormous tribute to the Open University and say to my noble friend that the existing position of repayable loans for part-time students will be replaced with a non-repayable grant within a means-tested system that will apply to all students, regardless of age.
  Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that in practice the Higher Education Bill on top-up fees discriminates against part-time workers? Why on earth can she not concede that something needs to be done now, in respect of part-time workers as students, because so many need to pursue their further education for themselves and the country? If ageism is to be defeated, that should apply equally to allow the over-50s such as myself to study.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Surely not, my Lords. As I gallop towards that age I am well aware of the matter.

  437
  The Bill does not simply concern top-up fees; it is also about a new approach to the funding of higher education and it contains many other measures which I look forward to debating in your Lordships' House. Also, regarding my comments about part-time higher education students, it is worth reiterating that we are replacing loans with a grant. Eight grants will be available. as opposed to six loans. There will be no age limits for grants. We believe that we have a good package. Regarding other students being able to access courses, we have a good story to tell on access to further education for people of all ages—and rightly so.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although she is replacing loans with grants for students at the Open University, the lack of availability of loans to those students discriminates against people who wish to study part time to acquire a degree? Given that the Open University offers by far and away the most cost-effective form of degree training in this country, why are we discriminating against its students?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Baroness that we discriminate against those students. The point of the present loans system is that a loan has to be repaid. As I believe I said in my Answer, those older people who are able to verify by declaration that they intend to go back to work and will be able to pay back the loan are included. Although we keep the matter under review and I am aware of the work being carried out in this field, it is important that we look at the resources available for higher education and where we need to enable our students to access the available loans and grants. I believe that we have the balance right.
  Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I welcome the changes that the Minister described to support part-time students. Does she agree that part-time students form the key to our aims of widening participation, and that the costs of teaching such students should be borne in mind in the Higher Education Funding Council's allocation to universities, particularly since part-time students will not be able to take advantage of the proposed graduate contributions scheme?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. It is important that we recognise the contribution of part-time students to the Government's aspiration to ensure that people are able to access higher education. I agree that we would expect that to form a part of the way in which the Higher Education Funding Council thinks about its allocation.
  Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what representations the Government have received regarding financial arrangements for these students?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be well aware that Age Concern recently
  438
  published a report, and the department is currently considering its response. I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness with more detail of those individuals and groups that may have been in touch with the Government. We are aware of the work of the House of Lords Committee, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, Age Concern and other organisations with which we have an active relationship. We keep these issues under review.
  Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that many students who sadly drop out of full-time higher education turn to the Open University to enable them to complete their degree? I declare an interest as a past vice-chairman of the Open University. Does the Minster agree that unless and until the current plans are changed, those universities' part-time studies will be left at a trading disadvantage and that the present arrangement discriminates against the disadvantaged students whom it most aims to help?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have addressed that issue to a degree in the package that we have described for part-time students. It is important to recognise that it is not only through higher education that those aged 50 and over are able to be involved in lifelong learning. For example, 25 per cent of all enrolments on adult education courses in November 2002 were made by individuals aged 60 or over. It is important that we think across the piece in terms of the education opportunities for all our citizens and our older citizens in particular in this context.
  Baroness Greengross: My Lords—
  Noble Lords: Next Question.

  Child Protection Strategy
  2.52 p.m.
  Baroness Walmsleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they plan to inform their child protection strategy by the experience of the European countries which afford children protection from assault in the home equal to that enjoyed by adults.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government have no plans at present to remove the reasonable chastisement defence, as we believe that the law as it stands on physical punishment of children reflects the right balance between protecting children and allowing parents to make their own choices about discipline in the home. The Government are aware of the experience of other European countries, and we take this into account in the ongoing monitoring of our current policy.
  Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Will she accept that in those countries that have given children equal protection, along with a lot of public education and help for parents, the benefits have been enormous, including a reduction in the number of prosecutions of parents and a reduction in the number of compulsory interventions from social services? Public opinion is now overwhelmingly in favour of the policy. In the 10th report of the Joint Committee on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it was proposed that the UK Government review the experiences of those countries that have given equal protection to children. Do the Government intend to act on that recommendation?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, when one looks across at our European colleagues it is interesting, as the noble Baroness rightly said, to look at the implications of the changes they have made and what we can see happening in issues around children—it is an important part of the work that we do. In response to her final question about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, we keep a watchful eye and we are consistently in conversation with our colleagues in different European countries about their experiences. It is hard to look for causal relationships in these areas, as one would expect. None the less, it is interesting. As the noble Baroness said, public opinion in different countries has led to different initiatives being taken. In this country, there is a reasonably strong view that the position of the Government is correct.
  Lord Laming: My Lords, would the Minister do everything that she can to remind the front-line services that the Children Act 1989 places a duty on services to put the well-being of children in a paramount position? That means listening to the child rather than to the wishes of the adults in the child's life.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I could not agree more strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Laming. It is absolutely critical that we recognise that nothing that I have said suggests in any way that we should be anything other than ever-watchful for abuse of children under all circumstances.
  Baroness David: My Lords, could the Minister please try to use her influence to persuade the Government to make use of the Children Bill to bring forward legislation that totally complies with the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which have both criticised the Government's attitude about hitting children? Surely she could do something to get us in line with the rest of Europe.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I look forward to the introduction of the Bill. I surmise that it will not be me who brings forward this issue on our deliberations, but it will arise in the course of our debate. I look forward to those debates.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, could the Minister tell the House how out of line we are with the rest of Europe? Apart from the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, which European states that belong to the convention system give this lesser protection to children in the home?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I will answer the noble Lord's question the other way around, because I am more clear about those countries that have decided to remove this. In the past 25 years, Austria, Croatia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Latvia, Germany, Cyprus, Iceland, Denmark and Israel have banned the use of corporal punishment on children. I gather that Belgium added a new clause to the constitution confirming children's rights to moral, physical, psychological and sexual integrity. The latest information that I have concerns the last meeting, at which the UK Government were present in Strasbourg, and where there was a great deal of debate.
  Again, I bring your Lordships' attention to the fact that we are not discussing this Government's belief that we should do anything other than protect children from abuse. Talking about what can happen to a child in a loving relationship and discipline in the home is different from discussing what is abuse of children.
  The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, can the Minister say how the Government are promoting positive parenting and helping parents under stress set proper boundaries for their children? How are they are encouraging health visitors to get messages across? How are the Government involved in the Sure Start project?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am delighted to raise the issues that the noble Earl has mentioned. It is a critical part of the Sure Start programme to enable parents to get the support and advice that they need on issues of discipline, listening to their child and understanding children's behaviour. That forms part of it. I would be the first to say that we need to do more, but it is an integral part of what we want to achieve.
  Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, if the Minister is in favour of listening to children, is she aware that the overwhelming majority of children are in favour of removing the defence of reasonable chastisement?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as a mother, I was thinking of what my children would say on this subject. The noble Baroness made an important point about the need for government, and all of us, to listen to what children are saying. I go back to the point that I made earlier. I am not talking about children who are in any way abused. I am talking about recognising that in the home, in a loving family, there are different modes of discipline. We should be cautious and careful about the way in which we go forward on this issue.

  Police Service of Northern Ireland: Chief Constable
  2.58 p.m.
  Lord Glentoranasked Her Majesty's Government:
  In the light of pressure from all parties for investigations of past crimes, whether the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland is adequately resourced to carry out the tasks with which he has been charged.
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that the Chief Constable is resourced to deliver a professional and progressive police service. There are many competing demands for resources, and the issue of how they are deployed is an operational matter entirely for the Chief Constable, who must manage those resources and prioritise accordingly. The subject of the past is a difficult and sensitive matter for many people across the community of Northern Ireland. The Government welcome debate, because this is not a question that we can settle on our own. Any solution must be based on a broad consensus.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Would she not agree with me that now is not the time for the phasing out of the full-time reserve, without which the Police Service of Northern Ireland would be unable adequately to counter the terrorist threat?
  Furthermore, will she tell the House what sanctions Her Majesty's Government intend to take against Sinn Fein following the Chief Constable's confirmation that the Provisional IRA was involved in the recent beating and attempted abduction of Mr Tohill?
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, may be aware that the Chief Constable and the policing board announced in October 2002 a human resource strategy to meet the staffing needs of the police service over the next eight to 10 years. It was stated that from April 2005 there will be a phased run-down of the reserve during an 18-month period,
  "subject to no further deterioration of the security situation and the continued success of the recruitment campaign for the Police Service".
  The position of the full-time reserve is to be seen in the context of that whole human resource strategy.
  As regards the incident, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, may be aware that we have asked the Independent Monitoring Commission to examine it in the context of the preparation of its first report on paramilitary activity.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, given the enormous backlog of unsolved murders, it is clearly a matter of both conciliation and prioritisation. What plans do the Government have for developing reconciliation and what advice and guidance are they offering the Chief Constable with regard to this matter? It is not merely an operational issue; it is also
  442
  one of much wider political consequence in Northern Ireland. I should have thought that the Government would offer guidance to him on this matter.
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in my Answer, this is an issue of great sensitivity in Northern Ireland. The Chief Constable has undertaken to ensure that where the evidence is available, it will be looked at by the new team established for this very purpose.
  On reconciliation, there have been calls from a number of quarters for a truth and reconciliation commission. At present, we are saying that debate on the subject is welcome. It is not an issue the Government can settle on their own; we need to address it in a way that commands widespread acceptance and co-operation.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that when the Patten commission made its recommendations on the shape and size of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, it had in mind that it would be doing the normal job of a police force? It did not have in mind that it would be doing a series of Bloody Sunday inquiries too, with all the costs that that entails not only in people but in money. Surely, it must be accepted that the present staffing of the police is in no way commensurate with the work that will be required. This is a new situation.
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is precisely why the Serious Crime Review Team was established from Monday, 16 February. The work in which it is presently involved includes formulating a response to all external inquiries relating to historical murder investigations. It is proposed that the review team carry out a review of any of those investigations where evidential opportunities have been identified. The noble Baroness is right that the burden on the Police Service of Northern Ireland of undertaking large-scale inquiries is such that the work of this team will be important in taking forward any matter on which it has evidence and has identified where further investigation should take place.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, given the present security and political situation, does the Minister believe it appropriate to wait until May for a report on the Tohill incident?
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have asked the Independent Monitoring Commission to bring forward its report from July to May precisely because we were concerned to have information on the matter as quickly as possible.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, given that the situation has been getting worse for some time and that at the time of the Good Friday agreement some 70 per cent of murders by republicans and 50 per cent by loyalists were unsolved, why has it taken so long to set up this new unit?
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, issues needed to be addressed in relation to the work that the unit would

  443
  do. That has now happened. As I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, the review team was resourced from Monday, 16 February and its task has been set out clearly. I am happy to write to the noble Lord with further information on that.

  Human Rights Act 1998 (Making of Remedial Orders) Amendment Bill [HL [
  3.5 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of the periods of time applying to the stages and making of a remedial order under Section 10 of that Act. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
  On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

  European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill
  3.6 p.m.
  Read a third time.
  Clause 2 [Pilot order]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved the amendment:
  Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
  "( ) A pilot order made by the Secretary of State under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this brings us to the last stages in this House of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill and I have one final amendment to put to the Minister. It is not one with which he will be unfamiliar, nor will he be particularly surprised by it.
  I was grateful to the Minister for his openness and willingness to provide information in Committee and on Report. I was particularly grateful for the policy paper he put forward which clearly laid out a number of the matters we have discussed. It provided some resolution to some of the questions we have asked and discussed throughout the passage of the Bill. However, I am concerned that that information will not come to this House in the form of an order so that the House can decide whether it is appropriate.
  The pilot order will lay the base for these elections and will provide all the information. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, or the Minister waved a thick document at me during Committee and asked whether I really wanted to have all of that. The probable answer is that we do. If not, we need to see a pilot order which lays out the principles for the two regions which will be considered. The principles are laid out, more or less, in that policy paper.
  We in this House have had a great deal of input to the Bill. We have laid down all the parameters for it and it would be reassuring for this House to have the final stamp of authority on what is put forward in the pilot order. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the amendment is the same as one I tabled in Grand Committee. Although I did not repeat that on Report, I believe that it is desirable. There is no doubt that the pilot order will be sizeable and will contain considerable detail. Some of that is of serious importance. It will operate as a precedent if the pilots prove successful and are introduced generally in future for the procedure to be adopted in all postal elections. It is of considerable importance and it is desirable that your Lordships' House should have some form of input. For that reason, I am happy to support the amendment.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I seek to keep my remarks succinct to follow the excellent example given me by both the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
  Essentially, I will say that I do not believe that the amendment is necessary; that there is good reason why we have never done it before; that there are risks of delay in doing so, and that we can offer something better.
  On the first point that the amendment is not necessary: that is not simply the Government's view, it is the view of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. When the committee looked at this issue in some detail, mindful of the significance and scale of the pilots that we are talking about, it came to the conclusion that no parliamentary procedure was necessary. The committee's report explicitly stated that the issue of whether the negative procedure was appropriate was considered in coming to its conclusion.
  As to the point about never having done it before, over 150 pilot orders have been made under the RPA 2000 for pilots at local elections. Fifty-nine pilot orders were required for pilots in May 2003, and over 30 orders have been made to permit by-election pilots. All these orders involved no parliamentary procedure.
  The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, while recognising that the pilot order would refer only to a one-off event, raised issues about how the pilot orders will be publicised. We intend to act on their recommendations. For example, the order will be available on the departmental website and will be supplied to political parties, disability groups and all regional returning officers. We will also produce an easy-to-follow précis of the most relevant parts of the order, which we will distribute in a similar way. The précis will not include large parts of the order, which will be made up of consequential amendments, as those could obscure the clarity of the policy.

  445
  We are also looking at the possibility of distributing the précis in accessible formats, including Braille and on tape. We will discuss this issue further with disability groups to try to ensure that we take on board their interests and concerns.
  As for delay, were we to agree to this process, as the House will know, any Member in another place or here would have a period of 40 days after the order had been laid to table a Prayer to annul it. Until the annulment debate had been concluded, a number of electoral returning officers might feel that, out of caution, they had to keep preparing for a conventional election at the same time as the pilot postal election, which this Bill is all about. That would build in additional delay, risk and cost as a consequence.
  However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, was gracious enough to recognise, we have sought to consult and have as much openness and transparency as possible on the process of this Bill, including areas on which we have not been of one mind. We shared our draft policy paper because I could see no good reason why opposition Front Benches should not see it even before officials felt that it was complete, because thereby we would inform the parliamentary process and increase the openness of that process.
  What I say now is in a sense better than what is being asked for, because if we agreed to this amendment the only formal powers of the opposition Front Benches would be to vote down the order. While that is theoretically possible, it has rarely been done. It is merely a nuclear option without much influence. Instead I give a commitment that we will continue to provide iterations of the policy paper as it develops, giving opposition Front Benches the opportunity to feed in their comments and allowing them informal scrutiny of any details that might change between now and the making of the order. In this way, your Lordships will not just have seen the policy paper at a certain stage, we will seek continually to share the policy paper with your Lordships throughout that process so that you will know about any further thinking before the order is made.
  If any detail changes before the order is made, noble Lords will be made fully aware and have the opportunity to feed into the policy as it is finalised, rather than simply having the ability to oppose the order.
  Finally, I will provide Front Benches with a draft of the order before it is made and will be happy to receive any comments on that draft, subject to reasonable expedition—one would not expect such comments to take months.
  I hope that I am thus giving a continuing commitment to an inclusive process on the order, recognising that it is important that there is cross-party confidence in the detail of the order, without wishing in any way to imply that we are setting a precedent for all future orders. But we recognise that it is a significant order and it is right and proper that there is the fullest opportunity for opposition Benches to know what is going on and to comment. For these reasons, I hope that while I have not agreed with the
  446
  amendment, I have gone further than might have been expected in seeking to meet the concerns that underpinned it.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I never cease to be surprised by the Minister's responses and I am grateful for what he has proposed about ensuring that we see the draft order before it is published.
  I reassure the Minister that I have no intention of dividing the House on this amendment today. However, despite being able to see the draft order, I believe that that would have been a better process. This House in particular has made immeasurable progress with this Bill and has been very instrumental in ensuring that all the matters that needed to be dealt with have been raised and have now been included. It would have been better if the House had been able to look at the matter formally had it wished. Nevertheless, we have made progress. The Government have responded on at least some of the things that we were concerned about. We will certainly want to scrutinise the draft order. I presume that if it will not be possible for changes to be made then we could bring some of those matters to the House in the form of Questions before the order is passed.
  I want to thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for their courtesy during the passage of the Bill. We will not divide the House, although this would have been a much better process, but in future, if there is to be further consideration of pilot powers, this establishes the basis.
  The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee undertook its own scrutiny of what was proposed, but it reported before our debate took place. While the committee took a proper decision, it would have been better if we had had the order. That brings us to the end of that discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Filkin)
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

  Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2004
  3.19 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4 February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order deals with various national insurance contribution rates and thresholds. The provisions in the order are compatible

  447
  with the European Convention on Human Rights. All the changes were announced at the time of the Pre-Budget Report.
  For the self-employed, the order raises the small earnings exception, below which, depending on the level of their profits, they may claim exemption from paying class 2 contributions. The exception will rise in April, from £4,095 to £4,215 a year, an increase broadly in line with prices. Many people choose to pay these contributions in order to protect their benefits entitlement. The rate of class 2 contributions for 2004–05 will rise to £2.05 a week, also in line with prices.
  Staying with the self-employed, the draft order also sets the profits limits between which main rate class 4 contributions are paid. The lower limit, at which contributions become due, and the upper limit will increase broadly in line with inflation. The lower limit will rise in line with the income tax personal allowance from £4,615 to £4,745 a year. At the other end of the scale, the upper profits limit will continue to match the upper earnings limit for employees, which will go up to £31,720 for 2004–05. This ensures that the self-employed pay main rate class 4 contributions on much the same range of earnings as employees liable to class 1 contributions and is an essential element in making the national insurance system fair for everyone.
  The draft order also deals with the weekly rate of voluntary class 3 contributions, which help those with insufficient contribution records in any given tax year to make up a qualifying year for benefit purposes. The rate of class 3 will rise in April by 20 pence to £7.15 a week, a standard re-rating in line with prices.
  The review of contribution rates is accompanied by a report from the Government Actuary detailing the effects of the draft order, and the draft order uprating benefits laid by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on the national insurance fund. I am pleased to say that, for the sixth year in a row, there is no expectation that the fund will need a Treasury grant. Nevertheless, a prudent provision of 2 per cent of all benefit expenditure is made.
  Northern Ireland has a separate national insurance scheme from Great Britain, but the two schemes are closely co-ordinated and maintain parity of contribution rates. This draft order covers both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House.
  Moved, That the order laid before the House on 4 February be approved [8th report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Davies of Oldham).
  Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, the debate on this annual order is a valuable opportunity to examine the key issues surrounding national insurance contributions, which have come into the spotlight since the Chancellor's decision to raise them last April. We are particularly privileged this year in that, in
  448
  contrast to last year, we have the opportunity to discuss the order in this House before it goes to another place.
  It is important to examine the order in the context of the increases in national insurance that the Government have already introduced. I am sure that outside the Westminster village people are well aware of these rises, as they have seen the large dents that have been made in their pay packets. It is worthwhile reminding the House, lest anyone here forgets, that national insurance contributions rose by 1 per cent last April. This increase applied to all earnings over £4,615, not just to those below the ceiling, and employers also have to pay an additional 1 per cent.
  These increases came despite the Prime Minister's assertion before the last election that people should not suppose that he proposed to increase national insurance. My party has consistently argued that the increases are a tax on jobs and we see no reason to change that view. It is noteworthy that the Explanatory Notes claim that the,
  "order does not impose any new costs on business".
  Perhaps this is technically correct; the damage to business has already been done by the increases brought in last April. For their part, the Government have argued that the increases are necessary to increase spending on the health service but a 37.5 per cent increase in spending has brought only a 5 per cent increase in hospital activity. It is increasingly clear that the NHS needs not just more money, but also meaningful reform.
  In the light of last year's national insurance increases, in the Pre-Budget Report published last December the Chancellor announced that:
  "NICs threshold and limits will also increase in line with inflation. There will be no change in NICs rates for employers and employees, or the profit-related NICs paid by the self-employed, in 2004–2005".
  I am intrigued to see that this order applies to only the rates of class 2 contributions by the self-employed, class 3 voluntary contributions and the thresholds for the class 4 profit-related contributions paid by the self-employed.
  I would be grateful if the Minister would explain why the thresholds, the lower earnings limit, the primary threshold and the ceiling are not being raised for class I contributions. I would also be grateful for an explanation of the level of increase in each case: class 2 contributions are to rise by 2.5 per cent; class 3 contributions and the threshold for class 2 contributions are to rise by 2.9 per cent. The lower limit for class 4 contributions is to rise by 2.8 per cent and the upper limit by 2.5 per cent. Why is there no consistency? I listened carefully to the Minister but I would still like clarification on this question.
  I note that my colleague, the then shadow Paymaster General, raised this issue in another place last year. He was told that:
  "We rounded the figures to make them easier and more understandable, both for employers and for our constituents".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 6/3/03; col. 15.]

  449
  If the aim was to increase everything by as near as possible to the retail prices index inflation measure of 2.8 per cent, as according to an announcement by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in another place is occurring with national insurance benefits, the threshold for class 2 contributions would be set at £4,210, rather than £4,215, and the upper limit for class 4 would be £31,810. I have no doubt that an explanation of the Government's thinking in these cases will be very enlightening. I am sure that the Minister will explain at any minute.
  As I have said, it is fortunate that this time we have an opportunity to debate this order, especially as we are discussing it before it goes to another place. I would therefore be very grateful if the Minister would address my queries.
  Baroness Barker: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, rightly pointed out, the national insurance fund has taken on a significance that it might not have in other years. Those of us in this House who eagerly await the emergence of the Pensions Bill from another place find ourselves unduly fascinated by the subject.
  I have just one substantial question for the Minister, which is about the state of the out-turn on the national insurance fund. My honourable friend in another place Steve Webb pressed the Minister on this point and he got no joy. It is a significant matter and therefore I am following up his question.
  In Appendix 7, the actual out-turn on the national insurance fund of £1.75 billion is compared to the estimate that the cost of administration of the fund would be about £1 billion. The estimated cost of administration has gone up by £750 million. The footnotes give two reasons. One is that it was one-off payment to the Welfare Modernisation Fund. My colleagues in another place have tabled Questions about exactly what the payment was and how it was broken down. So far, answers have not been forthcoming.
  It seems that this fund is being used by the Department for Work and Pensions on interesting and curious schemes, notably its administration, simply because there is, as the Minister said, a healthy balance in the fund. Indeed, for the sixth year running there is no need for a Treasury grant. However, £750 million is a sizeable amount to be moved into departmental administration. Will the Minister tell us why the costs of administration have risen so much and why the money has not been spent on national insurance benefits?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from the two noble Baronesses who have spoken in this debate.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked why level I is not included in the order. Class 1 will be increased in the same proportions and under the same principles in a different set of regulations which come into force in April. They are not included in this order; they are in different regulations.
  450
  The noble Baroness mentioned the increase of 1 per cent surcharge last year with regard to the NHS. I hear yet again that doleful and yet, I assume, well meaning cry from opposition Benches that such imposts have the most devastating effect on the employment prospects of our fellow citizens. I merely report that this is what they said last year in anticipation of this measure and they are reiterating it now. Last year they had at least the benefit of their supposed foresight without any evidence. Their view is being reiterated today when they have the evidence; namely, that Britain's employment level is at the highest it has ever been and that the unemployment level is historically not just very low in this country but is low compared with any other economy in the western world. Yet I am charged at the Dispatch Box with the view that, if one dares to increase expenditure on the National Health Service in this way, it will have the most devastating effect upon employment levels in the country. That is just not so.
  As for the impact on the National Health Service, we all recognise that one does not just flick a switch and expect an immediate response when dealing with a body that is so significant. It requires—and this is what we are planning—substantial increased investment over a number of years, of which the last year has been a very significant one. The noble Baroness knows that we have already been able to increase significantly the number of doctors and nurses in the health service. We have seen improvements in our hospitals— that is the daily experience of our fellow citizens.
  I do not pretend that we will create the desirable position of the National Health Service overnight. We all know that there are very significant demands upon its resources. Nevertheless, I defy anyone in this House to suggest that the increased expenditure on the National Health Service, particularly on increased numbers of doctors and nurses, is not money well spent on the health of our fellow citizens.
  The noble Baroness also raised the issue of the upper limits of the figures. I heard what she said. There is no arithmetical accuracy on the translation of the inflation rate to the two figures she quoted. On a figure of £31,801 we are £70 out. My mathematics is not up to translating that into a percentage but it appears pretty microscopic to me. On the other figure that she quoted, we are £5 out on a figure of over £4,210. Again, it seems that we may be straining at a gnat if we are not able to digest these figures when we say that— in broad terms— they have been increased in line with the level of inflation.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, addressed me on the issue of the estimate of the administrative costs. The estimate includes several items that will not be incurred in future years. There was an extra payment made to the department to compensate for an under-payment in 2001–02, and a one-off payment to the Welfare Modernisation Fund. Those two figures explain the bulk of the £750 million to which she referred. They are not recurring costs, but one-offs. I hope I have reassured her of the justification for that increase. I commend the order to the House.
  On Question. Motion agreed to.

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
  3.35 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill he now further considered on Report.
  Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Rooker.)
  On Question. Motion agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Independent examination]:
  [Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 76A not moved.]
  Clause 21 [Intervention by Secretary of State]:
  [Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
  Clause 22 [Withdrawal of local development documents]:
  [Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
  Clause 23 [Adoption of local development documents]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No.79:
  Page 13, line 15, leave out "(other than a development plan document)"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80 and 81. In Committee, I promised the Minister that I would return to the binding nature of the planning inspector's reports. Clearly, my position has not changed; here we are again.
  I fundamentally believe that taking away the right of a local authority to question the inspector's report and, instead, to make it bound to it lock, stock and barrel, is wrong, however innocent a provision the Minister believes it to be. The local development documents will be produced locally, they will be consulted on locally and they may have an impact locally. It must be right, therefore, that the final decision on whether they are implemented is in the hands of the local authority. Issues of democratic accountability underlie this matter, and they lead me to believe that this must be the case.
  We have had a very considerable quantity of representations on this matter from a number of organisations—including the Local Government Association—that remain extremely concerned about the whole process of the inspector's report being binding in relation to the local development documents.
  The Local Government Association is concerned that there will be no final democratic accountability in this situation. There are known instances in which the inspector has made a fundamental error in the judgment. The Local Government Association wishes—as we do—to see this aspect of the plan reduced in line with the amendments that we have tabled. Amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 81 would remove that binding status. We see no reason why subsection (1) should differentiate between local development documents and local development plan documents.
  Amendment No. 79 would remove the phrase,
  "other than a development plan document".
  That goes hand in hand with our Amendment No. 81 that would remove subsections (2) to (4) and ensure that all local development documents, including development plan documents, could be adopted by local authorities as originally prepared, or as modified, without being obliged to adopt the recommendations of the independent examination.
  Amendment No. 80 leaves the local planning authorities to decide whether or not to modify the local development documents and to take into account the independent examination. Any modification is therefore down to the discretion of the local planning authority, rather that the inspector having the last and compelling word on the matter.
  That is a wholly sensible review of the Bill and a wholly sensible amendment to it. It is one that is widely sought throughout local government and the various bodies that have taken an interest in planning and sent us briefings on it. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this group of amendments includes Amendment No. 80, to which my name is attached, and Amendment No. 83. tabled by us. As the noble Baroness said, they go hand in hand with the first of her amendments, which would delete the provision that states in terms that the local planning authority must not adopt a development plan document unless it does so in accordance with one of the previous subsections. They provide that the document must be as originally prepared, if the inspector recommends that it be adopted; or with modifications recommended by the inspector. That comes to the same thing: subsection (4) provides that the inspector's report should be binding; the amendments remove that provision.
  When we debated the matter in Committee at the end of January, the Minister's resistance to changing the clause boiled down to the scope for delay if the inspector's recommendations were not adopted. He said that,
  "inspectors' binding reports are a key to speeding up the plan making system and enhancing community involvement in it… If a further inquiry into a modification is needed, that process can take six months or longer".—[Official Report, 27/1/04: col. 147.]
  I am not sure that I follow the argument that the binding report would advance community involvement; that is a different view of community and of the role of the local authority to mine. Perhaps I shall be struck by lightning for saying this, but if a few months—six to cite the Minister—is needed for a further inquiry, is that a disaster if it means reaching the right outcome?
  There is a fundamental difference of view between us about the democratic process: whether the inspector is likely to be regarded as the creature of the Secretary of State. I accept what the Minister said—either in Committee or on our first day of Report; I forget which—about the independent nature of the inspectorate and about how inspectors inspect the inspectors. That is why I used the phrase about being "regarded as the creature of the Secretary of State".

  453
  Even leaving that aside, the Government are enthusiastic for localism. The terminology with which all three Front Benches lived during the passage of the recent local government Act is all about freedom and flexibility. But in this instance, it seems that the local authority is not to be allowed to be responsible for its own decisions.
  In preparing the local development document, the local planning authority must have regard to its community strategy and, indeed, those of its neighbours. One might say that local development plans are the spatial expression of the community strategy. As I said last time, one has to hold one's mouth straight to get some of those expressions out. There may be quite some scope for the inspector to skew the community strategy by his interpretation and application of it in spatial terms.
  The Minister also explained that authorities must act on recommendations that are soundly based, but what if the local planning authority takes the view that they are not soundly based? What are we left with? Judicial review, perhaps, but that will take a lot more time than the process advocated by the noble Baroness and me. Of course, an application for judicial review must be made within six weeks of the decision, but that is not the same as a determination of the issue.
  The Minister also said that the inspector could only recommend—or perhaps the term was "make"; I think that it meant "make"—a substantial change to the development plan document if people had had an opportunity to make representations or if it had been considered at the public examination and recommendation or debate supported it. But if the matter is controversial—and we are discussing such matters—there are likely to be views on both sides. We are not discussing clear-cut situations. If the inspector thinks that the development plan document should be significantly changed in some other way, the Minister said that the examination in public would have to be reconvened or the issue referred to the local planning authority.
  At the weekend, I looked to see how that was prescribed. I may well have missed it, because the regulations are necessarily—this is not a criticism—detailed and complex, but I could not see where that was provided, certainly not in the Bill. It may be somewhere in the Bill where I did not recognise it, or in draft regulations where I have not spotted it.
  In any event, I return to the fundamental issue. The nub of the argument is that development plan documents are a matter for the local planning authority, subject to the Secretary of State's nuclear option under Clauses 21 and 27. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness and me together do not just improve the Bill, which we all seek to do, but necessarily rebalance where decisions and responsibilities lie. I support the amendment.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I understand why the noble Baronesses have returned to the matter on Report; there are strong feelings about it. However, they are partly based on a misapprehension.
  454
  We have been clear from the outset that one of the key elements of our planning reforms is for the recommendations of the independent inspector, following an independent examination, to be the final stage of preparing the development plan document. The noble Baronesses have a different position. By implication from the amendments, the opposition parties want to retain the status quo. The two speeches that we have just heard encapsulate the fact that, taken together, this group of amendments would remove the important innovation of binding inspectors' reports on development plan documents.
  At the same time, however, through Amendment No. 79, they would muddle up the provisions for adopting local development documents that are not development plan documents—in other words, supplementary planning documents. That is because there is no independent examination of the supplementary planning document. That list of documents and how they interact with one another will probably be the subject of a team meeting later in the week, if I explain that inadequately today. But the fact that such reports are not subject to independent examination could cause confusion. A local authority could not take account of the inspectors' recommendations on such reports, because there would not be any—that is the whole point.
  The picture that has been painted is that of the local authority's legitimate wishes versus the uninformed wishes of a creature of central government, with the community's views squeezed out. That is not a fair picture of what we propose. First, the key feature of the new system is front-loading. The planning authority will reach decisions on key matters early in the plan-making process. The local planning authority will start by identifying and taking interested parties' ideas and views on all the potential options, and will then decide what it thinks best for its area. Its job is to devise policies and proposals for the development plan document for the area, fully involving the community in the process. Representations made to the authority on its preferred options will be considered by the local authority. No inspector will be involved at that stage. From that consideration, the authority will prepare its development plan document to submit for independent examination.
  We believe that the local authority is well placed to do that. It knows its local area best. The procedures that we are introducing will ensure early debate and decisions. There will be a strong disincentive for anyone to put off raising controversial proposals in the hope that they will have a better chance of succeeding if sprung on people at a late stage. That applies equally to local authorities or others, such as developers, or if an authority wishes to avoid coming to a difficult or potentially unpopular decision. It will not be able to do that under the proposed system.
  Secondly, the investment by the community and others in making representations on a development plan document, and participating in the independent examination will now always be worth while. There will be a positive action, and people will put investment into it. No longer will the community and

  455
  others face the unjustifiable position in which all its input is taken forward through the inspector's recommendations and then ignored by the authority, which can do something entirely different. That would undermine our intention to give communities a greater say in plan-making and secure buy-in.
  Finally, the independent inspector's job is to determine whether a development plan document satisfies the legal requirements on its preparation and whether it is sound. The starting point will be that the development plan document that the authority has submitted is sound unless there is evidence that it is not. Anyone seeking a substantive change to a development plan document will need to show that it is unsound without the change and that the change will render it sound. That includes the inspector as well. Therefore, changes that the inspector recommends will not simply be his view rather than the local authority's. The changes will be needed to achieve a sound plan and be tested against the criteria for soundness that the plan itself must meet.
  If, as a result of his consideration of soundness, the inspector believes that the development plan document ought to be changed significantly, that can happen only if the examination is reconvened, or if the development plan document is referred back to the planning authority for further consideration. If there is still insufficient evidence for the inspector to recommend a change that he thinks should be made to a development plan document, he will not be able to recommend that change in his report. If that happens, the inspector will be able only to advise the authority of his view that it should revise its development plan document or prepare a fresh one to take the matter forward. Those principles will be set out clearly in the final version of planning policy statement 12.
  The binding inspectors' reports are a key mechanism for speeding up the plan-making system. They are not a procedure for keeping the public out or for keeping out anybody who has views on a plan—far from it. They are pulled in early in the system to get their five pennyworth, as it were. They are also a device for making sure that major changes are not sprung on the public at the last minute. We think that the system will be faster. We want the process to be fairer, but we also want it speeded up.
  I shall give some examples of when an inspector may consider that a development plan document meets the test of soundness. The plan must generally conform with national or regional policy. That is self-evident. Secondly, the plan must be supported by a sound evidence base. It is important for the authority to provide that. The local planning authority must comply with its own statement of community involvement, and it must undertake a suitable sustainability appraisal and a strategic environmental assessment.
  The amendments are in direct contradiction to our policy on the issue, and I hope that they will not be pursued. I also hope that I have explained—albeit briefly, because we discussed the matter in Committee—that it is not our intention to use the
  binding statement to undermine the local authority. It
  456
  is a test to ensure that the plans conform to the legal requirement, which ought to be possible for a local authority to produce anyway.
  They will benefit the public; they will allow earlier involvement in the process; and they have the added advantage of ensuring that either a local authority or a developer cannot spring something major, new and controversial on the public at the last minute, when there is no time for it to be considered. In that sense, this is not a question of the creature of central government versus the democratically elected local authority. It is not that kind of arrangement, and I hope that I have explained the position sufficiently to persuade the noble Baronesses to withdraw the amendments.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I want to ensure that I understood the Minister correctly when he said that the procedures for reconvening an examination in public are to be a matter of regulations, and that I was not wrong in thinking that they are not on the face of the Bill.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is a process to be used when the development plan needs to be changed significantly, and those principles will be set out clearly in the final version of planning policy statement 12. There will be no arguments about it. It will be written down. It will not be based on a hunch, a nod or a telephone call, but will be clearly written down in that policy statement.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for endeavouring to persuade us so far that this is a matter simply to speed up the adoption of the document. Throughout the proceedings of the Bill, we have tried to make it understood that we are deeply concerned about the fact that the Secretary of State appears to play a significant role in all the policies from the regional spatial strategy through to the final acceptance of development plans.
  Despite what the Minister says, I do not see that for a local inspector to make recommendations that arc then binding on the local authority does anything other than stamp the Secretary of State all over this aspect of the process.
  The four amendments are all related to the binding inspector's report. Amendment No. 79 may be deficient to some extent, but all four would withdraw—
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, before the noble Baroness continues, I should like her to answer a question if she intends pressing the amendments. What would happen if a local planning authority refused to adopt a development plan with the inspector's recommendations? The inspector will have listened to the evidence and given some recommendations. The authority would be denying a sound up-to-date development plan document, which could be a disservice to its community when it has had an independent check on the soundness of the document.

  457
  What would be the position, if that is what the noble Baroness is advocating, and the local authority decided to dismiss the inspector's views completely?
  Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I have a case in point to relate. A planning inspector was appointed to inquire into a structure plan relating to housing in the Didcot area. He decided that 3,000 houses should be in one part of the town rather than another. The full county council took the inspector's report and on the evidence reached a totally different conclusion, which I believe was the right one. I think that the inspector was not really cognisant of the affairs of the area, and his judgment was based on what I would call a textbook version rather than an actual version of what happened. The county council chose the adopted structure plan in the end.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, am I not right in saying that, ultimately, the Secretary of State can overrule both the local authority and his own inspector—for example, in the famous case that I believe was in Sussex?
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Secretary of State's powers in this Bill are essentially a longstop. Under Clause 21, there is a power to call in and approve the development plan document. But, essentially, it is a longstop power, which would be required only if there was a failure at the local level.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for his intervention, in which he clearly made the point that there are occasions when the inspectors' recommendations are wrong. As matters stand under the Bill, there is no going back on that. The recommendations would have to be implemented, although my understanding is that the inspectors represent the Secretary of State in their role.
  I think that there is not a great meeting of minds in these areas. Our three amendments and that put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, hang together as regards the binding inspector's report. So when we read Amendment No. 79, we must read through to the end. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
  4.1 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 79) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 138; Not-Contents, 125.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Baker of Dorking, L.

  Alexander of Weedon, L.

  Barker, B.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Biffen, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Blackwell, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Blaker, L.

  458

  Bradshaw, L.

  MacGregor of Pulham Market, L

  Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Maclennan of Rogart, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  McNally, L.

  Byford, B.

  Maddock, B.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Marlesford, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Courtown E

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Monson, L.

  Cox, B.

  Montrose, D.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton L

  Crathorne, L.

  Naseby, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Newby, L.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Deedes, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Denham, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Dholakia, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Eames, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Peel, E.

  Elles. B.

  Plumb, L.

  Elton, L.

  Quinton, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Falkland, V.

  Razzall, L.

  Fearn, L.

  Reay, L.

  Feldman, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Rees, L

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Rees-Mogg, L.

  Freeman, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Renton, L.

  Geddes, L

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Gilmour of Craigmillar, L

  Rober, L.

  Glentoran, L

  Russell-Johnston, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  St John of Fawsley, L.

  Goscnen, v.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Hamwee, B.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Hanham, B.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Hanningfield, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Howe, E.

  Stevens of Ludgate, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Thatcher, B.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  James of Holland Park, B.

  Tope, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Laing of Dunphail, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Walmsley, B.

  Lucas, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Luke, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  McAlpine of West Green, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Wolfson, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L

  Amos, B. (LordPresident of the Council)

  Berkeley, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Best, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Boothroyd, B.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Borrie, L.

  Bach, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Bridges, L.

  459

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Lipsey, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Burlison, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Carter, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Christopher, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Clark of Windermere, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Cobbold, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Morgan, L.

  David, B.

  Morris of Aberavon, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Moser, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Paul, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Pendry, L.

  Desai, L.

  Peston, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Donoughue, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Elder, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Rea, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.[Teller]

  Rooker, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Gale, B.

  Sheldon, L.

  Gavron, L.

  Simon, V.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Gilbert, L.

  Stallard, L.

  Golding, B.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Strange, B.

  Goudie, B.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Gregson, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Grocott, L.[Teller]

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Haskel, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Triesman, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Varley, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Walpole, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Warner, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Jones, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Judd, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Layard, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  4.12 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 80:
  Page 13, line 19, at end insert—
  "(c) any recommendations made by the person appointed to carry out the independent examination of the document."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Carter): My Lords, if Amendment No. 81 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 on grounds of pre-emption.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 81:
  Page 13, line 20, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 82 to 84 not moved]
  Clause 24 [Conformity with regional strategy]:
  [Amendments Nos. 85 to 95 not moved.]
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 96:
  Leave out Clause 24.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 24 is perhaps one of the most controversial in the Bill. The new powers it gives rise to are centralising to the point of control freakishness. It puts into law the requirement for local authorities to adhere to government policy by having general conformity to the regional spatial strategy, which sets out the Secretary of State's policies.
  As a result the Government will have a level of control over local councils not seen before in planning terms. When the local authorities draw up their plans for public consultation, there are opportunities for representations to be made by members of the public. That is an essential part of the planning system. Yet the local authorities' plans will have to be in conformity with the regional spatial strategy. The consultation process during the drawing up of that strategy is limited and by invitation only. There is consequently a consultation deficit.
  If we take the example of airport development, the Government said in their recent White Paper that they wished to see a second runway at Stansted airport. That policy would be laid out in the regional spatial strategy. At that point, the local authorities will have to cater for an extended airport, including making provision for the thousands of additional houses required that are also in the sustainable communities plan. But that is all presupposing that the airport and/ or housing will materialise, prejudging the result of a future planning inquiry.
  The essence of Clause 24 brings a raft of questions to the fore. Clearly conformity with the regional spatial strategy where it is the overriding document is causing concern. For that reason I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will check with Hansard and I do not want to make a meal of this, but the noble Baroness gave the game away with her final sentence. She referred to the "conformity" but did not use the phrase "general conformity". The whole of her speech was based on the assumption that the provision is much more narrow and precise than it actually is. We covered the matter in Committee; I understand that we are in a new area, but the test is of "general conformity" and not "conformity". That means that it is only where a local development document would cause significant harm to the implementation of the regional spatial strategy of the spatial development strategy—I shall read that again, because it is underlined and I must get the words right.

  461
  The test is of general conformity and not conformity. That means that it is only where a local development document would cause significant harm to the implementation of the regional spatial strategy of the spatial development strategy should the local development document be considered not to be in general conformity. That is the end of the underlined section of the brief.
  We shall make the policy clear in the final version of PPS 12—thank heavens for that. The point I am trying to make, in more colloquial English, is that we have to read the clause in the sense of the opening line of Clause 24(1),
  "The local development documents must be in general conformity with—"
  followed by paragraphs (a) and (b). It is not a precision test, as the noble Baroness implied.
  If colleagues do not want local plans to be in general conformity with strategic plans, we can have a debate and perhaps vote on that basis, but not on the basis of conformity with strategic plans—it is general conformity. The point is that the principle of general conformity is long established. It is nothing that we have invented. It is the relationship now as we are before the Bill between the structure plans and local plans and between the Mayor's spatial development strategy and the London boroughs' unitary development plans.
  General conformity serves an important purpose. It links the regional—I shall leave out London, as there is no sense in repeating it—level to the local level, ensuring that the strategies are translated into policies at local level so that they can be effectively delivered. As the detailed policies at local level will reflect the broader strategic direction established at the regional level, it reduces the risk of contradiction and uncertainty for people using the plan.
  If we take the spatial nature of strategic plans for example—heavens above, the example I have is the London plan. The London plan, for example, covers land use planning issues, but it also deals with waste management, social inclusion, energy saving, tourism and sustainability. The effect of those strategic policies will be greatly reduced if there is no requirement at local level—where of course they will be implemented and where people will see the practical impact—for the policies generally to conform with them.
  The point is generally to conform with the policies, not a specific, narrow targeted area. People need to have the clearest possible idea of the likely outcome of a planning application. The supplementary planning documents will also be covered by the general conformity principle. That will assist people before they start their planning.
  This is not new or something that we have invented. It operates now reasonably successfully. I do not see transferring it to the new system as a problem. On the other hand, if the provision made a change and stated that documents had to be in conformity with the plans, I would have a view to share with the noble Baroness
  462
  and I probably would not be standing here proposing such a clause, because it would lead to great difficulties.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I said the words "general conformity" when I spoke to the amendment. Perhaps I swallowed the first word a little, but I hope that the Minister heard me.
  I was interested to hear the Minister say that this is how things have been done in the past. However, we have not had regional spatial strategies in the past, nor have we had the very wide policies coming from those strategies—and we shall return to the position in London in later amendments.
  General conformity will be hard to define. What part will conform and what part will not? If the Minister says that it simply has to "take account of" then why does not the clause say that? Or if "consideration" must be given, why does it not say so? The words "in general conformity with" acknowledge specifically that the document will have to relate extremely closely to the regional spatial strategy.
  I shall not take this matter any further today. I hear what the Minister has said, but for the purposes of this debate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 25 [Revocation of local development documents]:
  [Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
  Clause 26 [Revision of local development documents]:
  [Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
  Clause 27 [Secretary of State's default power]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 99:
  Page 15, line 14, after "are" insert "significantly"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return to the question of whether the amount of intervention—in my notes I have the word "interference"—from the Secretary of State is of concern to us. Amendment No. 99 seeks to qualify when it might be appropriate for the Secretary of State to become involved in the new development planning process.
  At the moment, the wording of Clause 27(1) is decidedly vague on when the Secretary of State will or may intervene. The subsection reads:
  "This section applies if the Secretary of State thinks that a local planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document".
  How is such failure to be judged? What criteria is the Secretary of State to use when assessing whether there has been failure or omission? We believe that there would have to be a very good reason for the Government to call in a development plan document. I do not believe that it is reasonable for the default power to come into effect if there is a minor failing on behalf of the local authority.
  The amendment has been tabled to ask the Minister to spell out more clearly how he envisages the default power will work. Perhaps he could give examples of

  463
  circumstances in which he would think it advisable for the Secretary of State to exercise his power under the clause. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, although I shall cite a few examples for the noble Baroness, the short answer to the amendment is that the Secretary of State has a duty to act reasonably at all times. It is unnecessary to qualify the reference in Clause 27 by adding the word "significantly". If a local planning authority failed to prepare a development plan document for an insignificant reason, the Secretary of State would not intervene. This is not something that he would do on a whim.
  The noble Baroness asked me for examples. We make no bones about the fact that the power is deliberately wide and not restricted to any particular circumstance. There are numerous circumstances in which a local planning authority could fail to carry out its plan-making functions correctly, some of which I shall set out.
  It could be a failure to prepare a development plan document to deliver the requirements as set out in the regional spatial strategy. It could be where a plan clashes without sufficient justification with national or regional policy. As I said in Committee, we accept that sometimes there will be clashes and contradictions because of local circumstances, but where there is insufficient justification, there would be a problem. It could also be where a plan causes harm to other areas, such as to an adjoining local authority area. It could be where a local planning authority fails to deliver the development plan document as set out in its local development scheme, and where the local planning authority fails to adopt development plan documents after an examination.
  These are instances where the Secretary of State would wish to use the default powers. I do not deny that they are sanctions, but they would be operated only on the basis of the Secretary of State being reasonable at all times. If the Secretary of State were to operate unreasonably, there is always the possible threat of judicial review. Further, I am absolutely certain that good legal advice from within government would be offered to the Secretary of State before he sought to use these powers, so that he could not be accused of acting on a whim, being party political against a particular authority, or reacting to a personality clash. Good reasons would have to be given. The examples I have given are the kind we envisage.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am absolutely fascinated by the Minister's response. One of the examples he mentioned would be a failure to conform to the regional spatial strategy. We have just discussed at length how that is to be only a "general conformity". Now we must refer back to exactly what kind of conformity to the regional spatial strategy is required. If the local authority does not conform, or generally conform, it will be open to the Secretary of State to intervene because it has not done so.
  464
  It appears that Amendment No. 96, which I moved prior to this one, touched the edge of a problem here. The position is exactly as I said it was: the general conformity is in fact a conformity. Having said that, and having listened to the Minister's response on the other matters, I make no further comment. However, I am fascinated by his first response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 100 to 103 not moved.]
  Clause 28 [Joint local development documents]:
  [Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
  Clause 33 [Urban development corporations]:
  [Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
  Clause 35 [Annual monitoring report]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 106:
  Leave out Clause 35.
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 106 proposes that Clause 35 should be left out of the Bill. The clause requires local planning authorities to report annually to the Secretary of State on the implementation of their local development schemes, and whether the policies set out in the local development documents are being achieved. The clause also provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing what information an annual report must contain, the period it must cover—presumably one year—when it must be made and the form it must take. I really cannot see what useful purpose this clause or an annual report serve. We have here expressed, once again, the theme of the Government keeping an eye on local government.
  The clause would ensure that every 12 months. each planning authority writes to the Secretary of State setting out how it has progressed on its local development schemes, detailing how the policies in the local development document are being achieved. The reports will be more of those glossy documents with which we are all becoming so familiar, the expense of which must now be mounting into the zillions. Every single public authority is producing annual reports in all directions. I am in the health service and I know how many annual reports in the form of glossy documents are being produced.
  How much and what will the Secretary of State do with such annual reports? I understand that the whole purpose of the development plan process is to keep things moving and to hold reviews regularly. To produce an annual report simply marks yet another interception in the life of planning officers, who at the best of times are few and far between and will now have to set to and produce yet another monitoring document—because that is all it will be. Further, most annual reports tend to put a glossy face on what is being done. This will be another example of that practice.
  The requirement will be an onerous burden, time-consuming, producing yet more administration and costly. I would prefer to see the provision removed, but if the Minister feels that it is vital perhaps he will justify

  465
  its inclusion. In other areas of legislation, I know that my noble friends have argued that the Secretary of State should draw up an annual report on the workings of new legislation, such as the licensing Bill and the extradition Bill. The Government have answered that that would be burdensome and expensive. We ought to turn the turtle over and say that if it is expensive for the Secretary of State and the Government, it is expensive and unnecessary for others as well.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, one knows that the Government pay lip-service to reducing the administrative burden and the causes of unnecessary expenditure, and so on. How is it—I think that I can understand how it is—that Ministers let this clause slip by when the bureaucrats inevitably wanted to put it in? The bureaucrats want as much paper as can be produced on everything all the time.
  This is an additional burden. It is not a report to the people but to the bureaucrats in the department, who will be fully aware of what each local authority is doing. It is quite unnecessary and as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, there is a real shortage of staff, partly because they are scarce and partly because of resources. There is a real shortage of competent planning staff in local authorities. It is intolerable that the Government should propose something so totally useless and ultimately bureaucratic. I hope that the Minister will have no problem in accepting the amendment.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am persuaded that the measure is red tape; there is no question about that. One has only to look at it and ask oneself what purpose it would serve and how much it would cost. I hope that there would not be glossy reports—there would not have to be. It is probably red tape, though I would not say "burdensome" red tape because I do not actually know.
  If that was all that I had to say, then clearly we would accept the amendment. However, there is a problem. I remember saying this in Committee, so it cannot be new to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. The monitoring requirements in the clause and the regulations are not new. The work is being done now by most local authorities. All that the measure does is to formalise that practice, making it part of the new system and the effective implementation of the new development plans.
  That being said, I have to resist the amendment. I cannot rewrite the Bill on my feet—I am not the planning Minister—so I must be careful here. I am making the case for keeping the clause in the Bill because it does not impose a new burden. The work is already done by most local authorities. I would like to try to satisfy noble Lords, perhaps by letter, that it is not a new burden for most local authorities because they are already doing it now. If we had invented the practice from scratch it would, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford says, be a lot of red tape occupying planning officers when there are better ways for them
  466
  to spend their time. However, it is not a new burden or requirement and so I must resist the amendment. I will seek further information for Third Reading.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, to remove existing burdens is a merit in government. The Minister ought to remove the clause now with the proviso that the matter should be looked at again, so that, if we really think there has to be something like this measure, we can bring it back again.
  Lord Cobbold: My Lords, the purpose of the Bill is to simplify the planning process and this is a wonderful opportunity to do that.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister say either now or on Third Reading whether local authorities will be able to submit this information electronically to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister?
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, if they cannot then we will have failed with e-government. I am getting in real trouble here. I have no authority to accept the amendment. What is more, there are some things that I might go to the stake for, but I am not going to the stake for this. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I am arguing the case for the status quo while he is arguing that this is a chance to get rid of some red tape. The local authorities do it now when they are not required to do it. One has to ask oneself why they are doing it. There is probably a good and useful purpose for which this work is carried out. It is important to monitor the best practice and what is actually happening.
  When we were debating another provision of the Bill I referred to a list of 29 local authorities which had not completed a development plan in 14 years. A small minority are not conforming to best practice. The rest are doing the work and on that basis the measure will not impose an extra burden. I will make it my business to check that it does not and get confirmation that local authorities will be able to deal with these plans electronically. That way there would be no excuse whatsoever for publishing a glossy report.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I always like the Minister when he is just about tempted to foul up his own notes and everybody else's. I am grateful to him because he is honest enough to acknowledge when things are getting ridiculous. I suppose that I ought to take comfort from the fact that "annual report" does not have a capital A and a capital R, which would imply a glossy report.
  At the moment local authorities make annual returns to the department on the number of planning applications being dealt with, the time they have taken, and so on. However, at present, they certainly do not report on the implementation of the local development scheme, because it is not there. As I understand it, there is no requirement for a return on the unitary development plan. It may be that there is, but if there is not, there is no justification for putting this extra burden on local authorities because there will be a new

  467
  framework for documents. Indeed, some local authorities' report on the local development scheme might simply be to say that they have not done it, because for the first three years they will not have to.
  It would be helpful if we were to return to this matter. I agree that it is not the most important part of the Bill, but it is an important aspect. If we were to return to it at Third Reading, perhaps the Minister might be in a position to say either that he believes that the whole thing is a bureaucratic nightmare or that the detail that will be required justifies the use of the description "annual report" rather than "annual return". I will come back to this matter, but in the mean while I thank the Minister for having shown some scepticism about it as well.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 36 [Regulations]:
  [Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
  Clause 38 [Development plan]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 108:
  Page 20, line 28, at end insert—
  "( ) For the purposes of any area in Greater London, the development plan prior to the publication by the Mayor of London of a new spatial development strategy in accordance with section 341(1)(b) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (alteration or replacement) is the unitary development plan adopted in accordance with the principal Act."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments No. 110 and with Amendment No. 110A, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. It takes us back to London. In Committee I moved a similar amendment to the effect that although the Mayor's spatial development strategy—called the London Plan—will become the regional spatial strategy, it should not do so yet.
  The amendment provides that the unitary development plans prepared by the boroughs will remain the development plans for each borough until the Mayor publishes or adopts an alteration to the London Plan; in other words, not the London Plan that has just been published. It is a good read but it is also a big read. Talking of glossy documents, I noticed that it cost£50 to buy. One would have to be jolly interested in it. If one tried to download it using e-government, I suspect that one would crash quite a lot of computers in the process. I do not dispute that it has got some good stuff in it but it does not contain the policies that the London boroughs had during the process of the creation of the London Plan or treat what was happening within the context of the Bill.
  The Minister's response to the amendment on the previous occasion was that the plan would be published before the Bill commenced. It has now been published, but that is not the point I seek to deal with today. There is no opportunity for the local authorities to be re-consulted on the London Plan now that the Bill makes its status clear, unlike every other region in the country which will have an opportunity to be consulted on the new regional spatial strategy. Noble Lords may wonder whether that is fair—although, in
  468
  a sense, fairness is not the whole issue. We are also talking about effectiveness, whether or not the right policies emerge from the whole area of work and whether there is clarity in that.
  The Minister also said that making regional plans a part of the development plan is,
  "an important part of strengthening the strategic planning role. It is just as applicable to the Mayor's strategy as it is to a regional strategy".—[Official Report, 27/1/04; col. 187.]
  He further said that the Government were not fundamentally altering the existing relationship between the spatial development strategy and unitary development plans. Since then I have seen certainly one letter which confirms this. He said in that letter that the Government were making the position clearer.
  The Minister told the House that the strategy under the Bill would not replace Part 1—that is the boroughs' strategic policies in unitary development plans—and that the Bill does not affect the scope and content of the strategy. There is an overlap between the Part 1 policies of many boroughs' unitary development plans and the Mayor's strategic policies. While the London Plan is the most recently adopted document, I assume that it will have greater weight than the boroughs' unitary development plans. I am fearful that this will lead to more complexity and confusion in the process. Many of the London boroughs raised objections to the plan at the time but they were not aware of the status being proposed by the Bill and did not consider the level of detail included in the draft London Plan or the possible conflict that might occur.
  I am aware of the different approaches taken by the London boroughs. Some have gone ahead with modifications to their current unitary development plans; others decided to hold back until the Mayor's London Plan was published; and some went ahead with modifications on the basis that the new legislation would be in effect, or certainly anticipating the new structure of local development frameworks and so on.
  So what is emerging from the boroughs is very varied indeed. I have seen a number of such examples in my role as a member of the Greater London Assembly.
  Perhaps I may give one example of an area of difficulty—that of car parking standards. Noble Lords who have been involved in local government will know that the area of car parking standards can be very contentious. The London Plan policy states that U DP policies and transport local implementation plans should adopt the maximum parking standards set out in the annex, where appropriate, taking account of local circumstances and allowing for reduced car parking provision in areas of good transport accessibility. The parking standards in the annex are in many cases different from those of the London Borough of Camden, which prepared this note for me, and for other London boroughs as well.
  The policy refers to local circumstances and reduced levels of car parking provision but this is open to interpretation and is therefore a source of potential conflict. The London Plan specifically identifies what is called the central activities zone, which includes part

  469
  of Camden, as being particularly well served by public transport. Camden is fearful that this can be interpreted to mean that other parts of the same borough, where there are different levels of transport accessibility, are included and regarded as suitable for low levels of parking. I hope your Lordships will regard this as but one of the many examples where problems could arise.
  The Minister argued that the Government are not fundamentally altering the existing relationship and that currently the spatial development strategy can still be a material consideration. He also referred to the Mayor's powers of refusal. To me, this can be turned around and amount to an argument that the amendment I am proposing is not the problem for the Government that has been suggested.
  I understand that the Mayor has been advised that now that the London Plan is published, borough unitary development plans and local development documents should conform with it. That is exactly the problem we are seeking to avoid. It does not seem to be truly consistent with what we have heard before but it certainly spells out in words of one syllable the position we fear will lead to confusion. I beg to move.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and to speak to our Amendment No. 110A. I should briefly like to explain the rationale behind our withdrawal of Amendments Nos. 109 and 111 and the substitution of Amendment No. 110A instead. We believe it to be more sensible to follow the current structure of the Bill by considering the issues for London under subsection (2) and then the issues for the rest of the country under subsection (3). Our earlier plans would have knocked out subsection (2) and then removed "other" from subsection (3) so as to take the issues of London and the remainder of the country together.
  The Bill proposes to change the status of the Mayor of London's special development strategy—known as the London Plan—so the situation in London will be consistent with the Government's proposals for the rest of England. The London Plan will now have to be a formal part of each borough's unitary development plan when previously the UDP would only have to be in general conformity with the London Plan. This is despite the announcement in the planning Green Paper of 2001 that the Government do not propose any change to the Mayor's role in the arrangements for planning in London.
  It is wrong for the Government to argue that the change in London is necessary for the sake of consistency. The situation in London is unique and this makes it unsuited for the planning system the Government are establishing for the rest of England. There will be no regional spatial strategy in London, which will instead have a very much more detailed draft London Plan prepared by the Mayor. It is a highly prescriptive document that will inevitably conflict at times with unitary development plans. I can
  470
  give one example of this already. The Mayor is very keen on high-rise buildings and certainly there are boroughs in London—of which mine is one—where high-rise buildings are not part of the expectations in the unitary development plans. As matters stand, the local authority would have to conform to the Mayor's requirements. One can see room for all kinds of mischief there. The Mayor might like a nicer tower block somewhere in the centre of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, with its tine conservation documents and its low-rise buildings, would find that extremely unpalatable.
  We are told that when a conflict does arise between a borough's plan and the London Plan, the more recent document; that is, the London Plan, will have the greater weight. That would mean that the carefully considered unitary development plan, which is a result of months of consultation with local communities, can be overridden by the London Plan. Indeed, the unitary development plans in London were adopted only some five years ago. What is more, there is every chance that the planning application process will become more complicated and take more time. That is the very reverse of what we understood the whole of the Bill to be about. Each planning application will have to be considered in relation to both the local development plan and the relevant policies in the London Plan. Any appeal procedure that results from the refusal of a planning application will consequently also he far more complex.
  The amendment would retain the present relationship between the spatial development strategy and the unitary development plan in London boroughs. Under the present arrangements, the unitary development plans have to be in general conformity, but we now know that general conformity with the regional spatial strategy is actually conformity with the Mayor's spatial strategy. Section 304 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to reflect the setting up of' the revised administrative arrangements for Greater London. Section 344(2) states that Part I of the unitary development plans should be in general conformity with the spatial development strategy for the time being in force; and that Part 2 of the unitary development plans should be in general conformity with Part 1 and, in the case of a London borough council, with the spatial development strategy.
  All of that means that London boroughs will now not merely have to pay attention to but be governed by the London development plan. That was never foreseen and it was an eventuality for which unitary development plans were never developed. Under the current London Plan, they simply cannot be maintained.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is an interesting group of amendments. It contains amendments which would achieve slightly different outcomes. I can understand why the issue is important for London, but there have been some fundamental

  471
  misunderstandings and perhaps some confusion too about how the system will work. I am pleased in the first instance, however, that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, appears to agree that the Mayor's spatial development strategy should be part of the development plan. That is an important point of principle. Making the plan that sets the strategic planning framework for the region a part of the development plan is an essential part of affirming its status and reduces uncertainty and ambiguity. That applies just as much to the London Plan as it does to the regional spatial strategies in other parts of the country.
  However, I am disappointed that the noble Baroness believes that the recently published London Plan should not be part of the development plan. If it is right that future versions of the London Plan should be part of the development plan, I cannot see quite why the current published plan should not be as well. Making the London Plan part of the development plan is not a proposal that we have suddenly sprung on everybody. After all, the Bill was introduced on 4 December 2002. We wrote to the London boroughs in January of last year, before the examination in public of the draft plan, to draw their attention to that. The practical consequences of making the London Plan part of the development plan will be limited. We can perhaps discuss that in greater detail later on.
  I do not accept that the boroughs would have made significantly different representations on the draft London Plan even if they had known from the beginning that it would be part of the development plan. I do not accept the view that the current London Plan contains too much detail to be a strategic development plan. Where the panel report concluded that policies were insufficiently strategic, that was taken into account in a final version of the plan, but there is absolutely no reason why the London Plan should not contain strategic development control policies. After all, London has a history of detailed strategic guidance; for example, the regional planning guidance on strategic views in the capital and on the River Thames. That reflects the particularly close interdependencies of a city compared to a much larger region. The Mayor of London is charged with preparing eight statutory strategies that must be consistent one with another. That necessarily means that the London Plan should contain a substantial number of policies. It does not mean—as has been borne out by examination in public—that they are not appropriate for the strategic development plan in London.
  Amendment No. 110A would mean that the Mayor's London Plan would never become part of the development plan. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, explained, we have had a two-tier development plan in all other parts of the country in the form of county structure plans and local plans. From what I have heard, noble Lords opposite have not been enthusiastic supporters of changing those arrangements and have made common cause in arguing for a retained, strengthened position for the
  472
  counties. I can understand their political stance on that issue, but I am not quite so clear why they should object to a two-tier development plan in London, but not elsewhere. The noble Baroness said that there did not need to be consistency, but consistency is an important element of the argument and the approach—
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the difference between the London Plan and the regional spatial strategies is that the London development plan was consulted on and went through all its processes long before the Bill was promulgated? The London Plan has been drawn up against a completely different background. The consultation with the London boroughs was carried out against the background of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and not against that of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. There is a difference. The London boroughs had drawn up their unitary development plans. Consultation took place against that background and not against that of the London development framework.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes, my Lords, I accept that point. I think that I made it at the outset and explained that the Bill had been with us for some time. We consulted on it and published a Green Paper. It was understood where we were coming from in bringing the legislation forward. It is not a great shock.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Minister misunderstands me. The London development plan was consulted on well in advance of the Bill being put forward. Perhaps the Minister did not misunderstand me.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes, my Lords, I understand the point. I accept, too, that London is different from other regions, but not in its need for a strategic planning framework with development plan status. I hope that we could all accept that that was an essential building block of any sensible regional strategic planning system.
  It is perhaps the case that concern lies more with the practical consequences. That seems to be the issue which the noble Baroness has raised more recently, but it should not prevent us from making progress with that important move.
  The concerns that have been expressed are not well founded. By making the London Plan part of the development plan, we are increasing clarity and reducing ambiguity. Ultimately, we are not fundamentally altering the existing relationship between it and unitary development plans. The practical consequences of the change will be limited.
  It is perhaps worth reminding the House that, under the provisions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, borough unitary development plans must already be in general conformity with the London Plan. If the Mayor considers that the unitary development plan is not in general conformity with the published London Plan, he will provide a written

  473
  opinion that will set out the respects in which the plan is not in such conformity. That will be treated as a duly made objection. That is very similar to the arrangements included in Clause 24.
  I turn to the arrangements for planning applications. Under the current arrangements, the London Plan can still he a "material consideration" when a London borough considers a planning application. The weight given to the policies in the London Plan will in some cases be significant. Making the London Plan part of the development plan does not mean that boroughs will be suddenly faced with a different set of issues to consider when dealing with planning applications. The same basic principles still apply.
  The Mayor already has the power to direct the refusal of a planning application of potential strategic importance, if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to the London Plan or prejudicial to its implementation. I wonder whether the objection to making the London Plan part of the development plan may be less one of principle or even practicality and more of—dare I mention it? —politics. If so, it is no good reason to amend the Bill in that regard.
  A democratically elected Mayor for London has produced the London Plan following extensive consultation and an examination in public. Our view is that London needs a spatial framework. It is absolutely right that it should have development plan status. For those reasons, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that was interesting indeed. I shall answer the last point first. The examples that I was given—there were more than the one that I cited—and the work in briefing both the noble Baroness and myself were led by a borough under the control of the same party as the Mayor. We are not talking party politics; Camden is a Labour borough and the Mayor is a member of the Labour Party. It is perfectly obvious to any observer that there is considerable discussion between him and members of the Labour Party about what goes on in London. No one is playing politics. I have been told that boroughs understood from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that the Bill would not alter the relationship between them and the Mayor. They may have been wrongly informed or misunderstood, but they worked on that basis.
  As the Minister said, the GLA Act allows the Mayor to make objections to unitary development plans, which he said was not very different from the clause. Clause 38(5) is quite different, stating that, if there is a conflict, it,
  "must be resolved in favour of the policy … in the last document to be adopted, approved or published".
  The Minister also pointed to the Mayor's right of refusal. Of course that applies, but surely the point about that is that the Mayor is not left exposed with a London Plan of several hundred words that is worth
  474
  nothing. He should actually have the tools to do what he wants. What we are doing is not frivolous or seditious.
  The matter between us is whether it is the current London Plan or the next version that will kick in. The practical consequences are important. I am pulled in two directions over such an issue. In my role as a Member of the London Assembly, I do not regard it as axiomatic or automatic that I should oppose the Mayor in everything that he does. I cannot separate the different bits of my political life, but I regard the role of the Assembly as one of constructive criticism. I want to see planning in London work well, effectively, and not so confusingly that developers can run rings round the planning authorities by pointing out differences between documents and saying, "You've got it wrong. We're able to go in the direction that we want".
  I take what the boroughs of all three political complexions have said to me on the matter. Unless their fears were well founded, why would they make the points that they have made? I would like to test the opinion of the House.
  5.4 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 108) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 137; Not-Contents, 131.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L. [Teller]

  Elton, L.

  Alexander of Weedon, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Fearn, L.

  Arran, E.

  Feldman, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Flather, B.

  Attlee, E.

  Fookes, B.

  Avebury, L.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Baker of Dorking, L.

  Fowler, L.

  Barker, B.

  Freeman, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Blaker, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Glentoran, L.

  Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Buscombe, B.

  Hamwee, B.

  Byford, B.

  Hanham, B.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Hanningfield, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Henley, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Cox, B.

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Home, E.

  Craigavon, V.

  Hooson, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  Howe, E.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Denham, L.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  James of Holland Park, B.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Eccles of Mouiton, B.

  Kingsland, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Laing of Dunphail, L.

  Elles, B.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  475

  Liverpool, E.

  Rees, L.

  Luke, L.

  Rennard, L.

  McAlpine of West Green, L.

  Renton, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

  Roper, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Russell-Johnston, L.

  Maclennan of Rogart, L.

  St John of Fawsley, L.

  McNally, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Maddock, B.[Teller]

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Mancroft, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Marlesford, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

  Moynihan, L.

  Stevens of Ludgate, L.

  Naseby, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Newby, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Thatcher, B.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Peel, E.

  Tope, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Plumb, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Quinton, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Walmsley, B.

  Razzall, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Reay, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Redesdale, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Wolfson, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Elder, L.

  Alli, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Amos, B. (Lord President of the council)

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L

  Andrews, B.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B. [Teller]

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Filkin, L.

  Bach, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Gale, B.

  Berkeley, L.

  Gavron, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Boothroyd, B.

  Gilbert, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Golding, B.

  Bragg, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Goudie, B.

  Brookman, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Greengross, B.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Carter, L.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Chan, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Clark of Windermere, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Cobbold, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  David, B.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Jones, L.

  Desai, L.

  Judd, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  476

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Rooker, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Sawyer, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Sheldon, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Simon, V.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Strange, B.

  Marsh, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Mitchell, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Morgan, L.

  Tomlinson L

  Orme, L.

  Triesman, L

  Ouseley, L.

  Turner of Camden, B

  Palmer, L.

  Varley, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Walpole, L

  Paul, L.

  Walpole, L

  Pendry, L.

  Warner, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Radice, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  5.15 p.m.
  [Amendment No. 109 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 110:
  Page 20, line 29, at beginning insert "Thereafter,"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 110A not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 111 had been withdrawn front the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 113
  Page 21, line 12, leave out paragraph (c).
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 38(1) states:
  "A reference to the development plan in any enactment mentioned in subsection (7) must be construed in accordance with subsections (2) to (5)".
  Subsection (7) goes on to list the relevant enactments which include,
  "this Act … the planning Acts … the Land Compensation Act 1961 … the Highways Act 1980".
  I moved a similar amendment during a previous stage of the Bill and I asked the Minister then what other Acts would be involved, because they are referred to. He kindly referred me back to those that I had already mentioned and have just repeated. In the interim have there been any further thoughts regarding what the other Acts were? For the benefit of some enlightenment, I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall try to provide enlightenment. Clause 38 defines the development plan in terms of the new and simplified hierarchy of plans and documents created by the Bill. It applies the definition to existing legislation. Under Clause 38(1), if any of the Acts mentioned specifically in Clause 38(7)—for example, the Highways Act 1980—refer to the development plan, then the development plan means what it says in subsections (2) to (5) of Clause 38. The same applies if there is a reference to the development plan in,
  "any other enactment relating to town and country planning".
  The broad reference in Clause 38(7)(c) is mainly to ensure that future legislation relating to town and country planning will be caught by those requirements. If the Bill listed enactments individually, the list would become exclusive and could be added to only by changing primary legislation. Clause 38(7) ensures that the principal current enactments are listed in terms, all other legislation containing the relevant reference is caught and the development plan is defined in one statutory provision—Clause 38.
  I shall state a few facts. Regarding whether this makes life difficult for lawyers, we do not wish to be unhelpful but, if one uses electronic search facilities, one can search the UK statutes database. Such a search shows that there are 2,025 references to "town and country planning" in over 200 enactments. Furthermore, there are 295 references to "development plan" in around 30 enactments. It may be that there is a reference to the development plan in an enactment falling within Clause 38(7)(c), where that enactment does not relate to town and country planning. If so, then the construction provided for in the Bill will not apply—but that is something to be determined on consideration of the relevant legislation.
  I hope that I have given the noble Baroness the enlightenment for which she was asking.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the best enlightenment would come from saying that we probably need a consolidation Act if all that legislation is floating about. I now understand why they were not all listed on the face of the Bill and I thank the Minister for his clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 114:
  Page 21, line 16, at end insert—
  "( ) Planning authorities may set targets in their development plans in respect of the proportion of the building's energy requirements on an application site to be supplied by renewable sources obtained on the same application site."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 114, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a heating company.
  The amendment would enable local authorities to better carry out their duties in promoting sustainable development through the efficient use of energy in new developments. I am grateful to the Town and Country
  478
  Planning Association for the formulation of this amendment. The World Wildlife Fund, the Building Research Establishment, solarcentury, the Somerset Trust for Sustainable Development, Queen's University Belfast and Oxford Brookes University held a sustainable housing forum. From that forum, there was a call for the Government to make clear that the planning system should be a central element in meeting sustainable development and particularly carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets.
  Since then, there have been several examples of where local authorities have difficulty in this area. For example, extensive legal opinions were necessary before the London Borough of Merton unitary development plan could be adopted. The policy in that plan was the establishment of a target of 10 per cent of building energy needs to be met from renewable sources on site. This may not be the perfect amendment, but its purpose is to clarify that, in the interests of sustainable development, such a policy is lawful and should be supported.
  In the Government's consultation paper, Planning Policy Statement 1: Creating Sustainable Communities, four main aims for sustainable development are set out. The last two of those are effective protection of the environment and the prudent use of natural resources. Section 1.21 states:
  "Policies should reflect a preference for minimising the need to consume new resources over the lifetime of a development by making more efficient use or reuse of existing resources rather than making new demands on the environment; and for seeking to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the development of renewable energy resources. Consideration should be given to encouraging energy efficient buildings, community heating schemes, and the use of combined heat and power in developments."
  It is not often that the interests of two things that one is doing in the House come together. I am on the European Union Select Committee, which is investigating climate change. I am sure that the Minister will know that Woking Borough Council has an extremely good record on reducing carbon emissions in a whole range of ways. Last week, Allan Jones, the energy services manager in Woking, came to the Committee. I am grateful to him for his good definition of sustainable energy. I will quote it to the House:
  "Sustainable energy is anything that enables energy supplies to be made sustainable, either now or in the future, by putting in place such energy systems or infrastructures necessary to achieve a renewable energy future. A prime example of this is combined heat and power where the fuel may initially be a low carbon fuel such as natural gas which can be replaced later by a renewable fuel such as biogas, biomass or even hydrogen as used in fuel cells. The important issue here is the heat, chilled water and private wire networks serving buildings on local sustainable community energy systems which enables the easy replacement or refuelling of the primary energy generators some time in the future when fossil fuels become scarce or non-existent. Combined heat and power is particularly important since 70% of the UK's non transport energy needs are thermal and most renewable energy technologies are intermittent electricity generation only".
  The importance of that for planning is that the proximity of new and existing industrial and commercial sites to each other is vital. A community-led approach to such projects would be needed. Local authority understanding of that concept and proactive assistance in developing it are important.
  Woking adopted the borough local plan on 27 August 1999. There were three important policies in that plan connected with sustainable energy use. Policy BE6 was energy conservation:
  "The council will expect proposals for new development to take account of the need to conserve energy through appropriate location, design, layout and landscaping",
  policy CUS8 was renewable energy:
  "Proposals for the development of renewable energy sources will be considered favourably where there would be no material harm to the environment by reason of location, appearance, noise and traffic generation, nor result in the loss of land protected by other policies in the Plan",
  and CUS9 was combined heat and power:
  "The developments of combined heat and power stations that meet both the operational demands of the technology and the environmental policies of Local Planning will be permitted".
  Those are in the local plan. In practice, no developer has implemented any of those policies. The only people who have implemented any are the council and the public-private joint venture energy services company. However good everyone's intentions are, the problem remains that councils are often challenged when they try to implement such policies. I know that from my own experience. The heating company that I am involved with is in Southampton, and planners get edgy when we put forward proposals and ideas in 106 agreements to try to get sustainable energy into a development—they say that they will be challenged and that they cannot do it. It is important that we get a lead from the Government on this to ensure that when people follow what we all believe to be right, they are backed up in law and that they are able to do it. It is vitally important, if we are to tackle climate change, and if we really want sustainable development. I beg to move.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, we all believe in the sustainable use of energy. We all believe that it is desirable, taking a careful balance of costs—including environmental costs—versus benefits in the greater use of renewables. The greatest contribution that can be made and has been made to the better use of energy has been through the development of building regulations over the years, which have been extremely successful. A remarkably few years ago anything went, and there were wildly inefficient methods of heating houses. Now, building regulations require proper insulation standards, double glazing and so on.
  That is the right way to go. The noble Baroness's proposal is several steps too far. It is impractical and undesirable. Although I can see where she is coming from, I would not propose to have another overall target and an interference with the best methods that developers may feel that they want to use. The right
  480
  way forward is further development with building regulations and not something like this. I oppose the amendment.
  Lord Chorley: My Lords, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, but from a slightly different angle. The amendment talks about renewable resources, but 99 per cent of CHP schemes have nothing to do with renewable sources. The noble Baroness referred to the interesting things going on at Woking, which some of us know about, where CHP is used. Again, efficiency, which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, talked about in terms of building regulations, is not covered under the amendment. The amendment focuses on a minute bit of sustainable energy and not on the wider picture. Frankly, it does not seem sensible.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I support the noble Lord on the issue of building regulations. That is the way to go about the change, rather than using the law. The idea underlying the amendment and the attitude is a bit like motherhood and apple pie. The weakness of the approach is, simply, that renewable energy sources, desirable though they may be, have one overwhelming weakness; that they do not produce much energy.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my response will be somewhat inadequate in matching up to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I have a brief speaking note while the noble Baroness spent some time talking about the desirability of sustainable energy, renewables, the role of the local authorities and how the authority in Woking is tackling climate change. I was most impressed by what it is trying to do and I hope that other local authorities join it. I am sure they are because Woking cannot do it on its own.
  The point most importantly made is that this is not the place to deal with a detail of policy—important though it is in encouraging the better, sustainable use of energy and getting local authorities, providers, builders and so forth in the right mindset. I am drawn towards the points made by the last three speakers in this short debate.
  We believe that the issues are best covered in guidance so that planning authorities can best set their own targets through their own plans and can vary them according to the type or size of development. Draft planning policy statement 22, which was published for consultation on 5 November, covers planning policy in relation to renewable energy. The public consultation period for that paper ended a few weeks ago and the responses are currently being analysed.
  Proposals for bringing renewable energy and buildings within the scope of PPS22 along the lines proposed by the noble Baroness have been made in the context of this consultation. The Government will consider those proposals most carefully alongside the

  481
  other responses they have received. We will soon be making an announcement about the results of that consideration.
  I am grateful for the amendment being tabled because it is a useful and timely reminder. I agree with the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford, Lord Chorley and Lord Howie, because they are right in saying that this is not the place to make the change. It is much more appropriate in guidance and we can take it on board in that respect. Furthermore, being in guidance it will have more flexibility.
  I hope that the noble Baroness felt happy and satisfied in making good campaigning points in her argument, but will accept that the issue is best resolved in another way. We will all make more progress if it is and it is better that the issue is dealt with more flexibly.
  Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who intervened for some of their comments and I thank the Minister for his reply. Various criticisms were made. The wording of the amendment is that "planning authorities may", so no one is forcing them to act.
  Several noble Lords failed to recognised that if one is trying to carry out a community heating scheme of whatever type, it cannot be done through building regulations on individual buildings. In my view, in order to achieve the efficient use of energy, we need to go down that road when buildings are built close together. Criticism was made of combined heat and power not being renewable energy, but the point I made on the Woking scheme was that the advantage of having a community heating scheme based on CHP is that as new technologies are introduced the fuel can be changed. The other important point is that under such a scheme the electricity continues to be available.
  The complaint people make about renewable energy, particularly wind farms, is that the power is there only when there is wind. Allan Jones told me that, interestingly, in Woking their scheme is so efficient that during a power cut when an out-of-town shopping centre lost its power, the shops in the centre of Woking retained theirs because they were on the circuit of the CHP scheme.
  It is an important issue and I understand what the Minister says. I am pleased that the Government are looking at the matter seriously and I hope that PPS22 will enable local authorities, when they put it into their plans, to ensure that it happens. That was the point of raising the issue. People wanting to introduce such a scheme have come up against problems in making it stick and in getting people to carry it out. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 39 [Local development orders]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 115:
  Page 21, line 24, leave out from "with" to "sustainable" in line 25 and insert "the objective of achieving"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was part of a long group on the nature of sustainable development which your Lordships discussed in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said that the amendment makes the clause an,
  "operational rather than a pious hope".—[Official Report. 29/1/04; col. 330.]
  I am grateful to him for that and it was precisely why I spoke to the amendment then and why I am moving it today.
  The Minister said:
  "A plan itself cannot achieve a sustainable development … It sets out a framework, but it is the actions that follow which lead to sustainable development. That is why we used the 'contributing to the achievement of wording"—[Official Report, 29/1/04; col. 333.]
  I take the point that planning is not all, but it is more than just a framework: I would say that it is the bedrock. I agree with the Minister that the actions which follow lead to sustainable development. That is in part why I am moving the amendment. The clause referred to the exercise of functions by any person or body exercising the particular functions. I believe that they should do so not just with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development but with the objective of it. "Contributing" is inadequate.
  Unless the regional spatial strategy in the development plan documents establish the right bedrock, not only will we not achieve sustainable development, but we run the risk of allowing unsustainable development. I would like to think that every objective is automatically achieved but I do not believe that that is the case in life. Nor do I believe that that is what the word would mean were it to be included in the Bill. I make sustainable development the objective with the hope, though not necessarily the confidence, that by doing so it will always be achieved.
  I agree with the statement in the recently published consultation on PPSI that sustainable development is the core principle underpinning planning. Therefore, I again draw your Lordships' attention to what I believe is the correct expression of that statement within the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, when we debated this amendment in Committee I said that we would look at the issue further, which we are still doing: the clause is receiving ongoing consideration. However, I am able to tell the noble Baroness and the House that I hope—which means I expect—to be able to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading which will go some way to meet her concerns without opening up every planning decision to a challenge. In the light of that I hope that we can let the case rest now and we will have a substantive debate on this issue at Third Reading.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we will certainly have a substantial debate because if the Minister is unable to find the words I will be back with this amendment.

  483
  It will save us time today another 10 minutes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 116:
  Page 21, line 25, at end insert "and economic regeneration"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 119.
  These amendments provided for a very useful and interesting debate at the previous stage. I return to the two amendments that I put forward, seeking to have them put on to the face of the Bill.
  Since our last debate, the Government have produced a consultation document, PPS1, that sets out their interpretation of "sustainable development". I find it curious when we have had so much discussion on sustainable development that this matter comes to consultation only at this stage. It would have been helpful if that document had been around earlier. However, I re-tabled my original amendments to give the phrase proper definition. I maintain that it is crucial to get a definition on to the face of the Bill and not leave it to secondary legislation.
  My first amendment provides that development should contribute to the achievement of economic regeneration. We all believe in the benefits of economic regeneration, and it is through the planning system that local economic regeneration can be achieved successfully. It is surprising that regeneration does not get a statutory footing in the Bill; we believe that it should.
  We discussed the new clause quite extensively at the last stage. It was demonstrated that sustainable development was open to very broad interpretation. On the one hand, it can be perceived as a term that has environmental connotations, and on the other hand it refers to economic viability. The term can quite literally be interpreted as having meanings that are the opposite of each other. It is not good enough for the Government to give a vague explanation and say that a balance has to be struck. The term is too subjective.
  Far more importantly, it is unsatisfactory for there to be no definition in the Bill at all of "sustainable development". There is a substantial subheading under Part 3—"Sustainable development"—but there is still no explanation of what sustainable development encompasses.
  At the previous stage I put forward a new clause, which we debated, and I return to it because it seems that a definition that was accepted not only in this country but by the United Nations as far back as 1972 could form a proper basis for understanding what sustainable development is about. It is a definition that clearly has stood and will stand the test of time. The definition is quite encompassing and makes clear what would fall within the term "sustainable development".
  Although I hear what the Minister said about considering this matter further, I am not sure that he took into account that these amendments actually define sustainable development. I am therefore putting these amendments forward. I beg to move.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Cobbold: My Lords, both amendments are concerned with the definition of sustainable development. I have not changed my view that sustainable development is a subjective concept and impossible to define objectively. However, since our earlier discussions we have had the draft of planning policy statement 1. Paragraph 1.13 sets out the Government's current definition of aims of sustainable development; these give some guide as to what the Government are expecting. There is also the element of flexibility in the fact that they appear in the guidance, which enables the concept to evolve with time and particularly with local needs. The question of economic regeneration is also dealt with in the draft document—in paragraph 1.22. So I am satisfied for the time being that we understand what the Government are getting at and we will have an element of flexibility for reaction in different circumstances.
  Lord Chorley: My Lords, taking Amendment No. 116 first, I said in Committee that I did not particularly object to it but I did not feel that it fitted happily into this part of the Bill. That more or less remains my view. If anything, I am rather more adverse to having Amendment No. 116 included than I was then. For example, I do not know why the amendment talks about "economic regeneration"; if it talked about "economic development" that would be more sensible. "Economic regeneration" suggests that something that was not there is now happening. Perhaps that is a pedantic point.
  The other difficulty with having "economic regeneration" in this part of the Bill is that there are certain types of economic development or activity that are totally unsustainable. That is why it is not very comfortable to have it linked to that part of the Bill.
  I was in favour of Amendment No. 119 in Committee and am even more in favour now; that is, the 1972 Stockholm conference definition of sustainable development, which is still much the best definition that I know. It is better than the Brundtland definition, which introduced the word "need", which my noble friend Lord Cobbold rightly criticised in Committee. The word "need" opens up a whole new ball game for debate; as my noble friend said, it is highly subjective.
  A World Bank report on definitions of sustainable development listed at least 57 varieties of definition. In my view, the simple, straight, first definition of Stockholm is still the best. It is important to put it in the Bill because it gives statutory recognition to a basic framework which can be and has been built on in the guidance in the form of PPS1. At the same time—"guidance" being more flexible than enactments—it allows for changing attitudes and for development of

  485
  the concept as needs change, as they will. So I very much support Amendment No. 119, but not Amendment No. 116.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister explain how the concept of sustainable development applies to one particular aspect of planning that he mentioned earlier; that is, waste management? Are there overall considerations of sustainable development that apply to the types of waste management used in the regional spatial strategies and the local development documents that flow from them?
  The Government have published studies that compare different methods for disposing of waste. They are prejudiced, if I may put it that way, against landfill and are trying to reduce it. The effect of that is that other types of disposal of waste will have to be considered—either pyrolysis, which is supposed to be effective at reducing emissions from the incineration of waste. or recycling, which, so far, has not proved very attractive to local authorities.
  The cost of developing recycling plants is enormous, and the Government are not giving local authorities any assistance with the capital cost. The rate at which local authorities recycle their waste is far less, perhaps, than the Government would like. For sustainable development, the ideal is that the maximum amount of waste—household and other types—should be recycled. That is the principle behind some European directives, such as those that prohibit the disposal of refrigerators and electrical and electronic apparatus, all of which must be recycled.
  That is the direction in which we are going. Should it be encouraged in any way by the planning system? Should there, in regional spatial strategies and the local development documents that flow from them, be some ground rules that point waste disposal strategies in a particular direction? That does not appear in the Bill, and it would be an interesting illustration of how the sustainable development principle was interpreted in practice. Can the Minister say something about that?
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that it would be interesting, but, somehow, I suspect that it will not get into the Bill. I am not briefed to answer his specific points. The point that the noble Lord made that waste should be minimised in the first place in the design and packaging of products should be self-evident. In many ways, waste management should be part of the original design, before we ever get to recycling.
  When I had a job in the real world as a production engineer, modularisation was not around. There were some items that we did not repair: we just threw them away and gave people a new one. That was in the old days of loudspeaker manufacture, which I was involved in in the 1960s. Today, simply to get the cost of production down, everything is more and more modularised, and repair becomes impossible anyway. In order to reduce the price and get economies of scale, they must build recycling techniques into the design. More and more, that is the way it goes. There are some
  486
  motor cars—I shall not mention names—for which it is claimed that 95 per cent of the vehicle can be recycled. That is genuinely so and has been independently tested. That is in the design of products, before we get to waste management and decide whether to use holes in the ground.
  I have some notes on the matter, and I hope that I can give some responses to the points made. I shall not use them all, because we will come to the issue. As I have implied, I shall table an amendment to this important clause at Third Reading. Because of the issues that have been raised, we tend to think that it is easier to describe what is meant by "sustainable development" in guidance. We could come up with definition now, and, in three or four weeks' time, we could all agree something slightly different. I shall not argue the case between the 1972 Stockholm definition—as in the amendment—and the 1980 definition. I take the point that the use of the word "needs" in the 1980 definition opens up a can of worms.
  We have produced planning policy statement 1. The matter is referred to not only in paragraph 1.13. I also refer noble Lords to paragraph 1.22, which sets out objectives that planning policy should seek to achieve. The first two are to promote regeneration and regional, sub-regional and local economies and to promote communities that are inclusive, healthy, safe and crime-free. There is a list of four of five other objectives in that fairly long paragraph.
  The language has been carefully drafted, but it is not legally watertight in the sense that it would have to be. if it were in the Bill. I return to the point that I made at Second Reading: it has proved difficult to get a legal definition that we can be content with and does not open up a can of worms and prevent development. However, we have considered the matter again, and I am fairly confident that, by Third Reading, I shall be back with an amendment.
  The nuances that one wants cannot be put in a Bill. They must be put somewhere where we can use more flowery language and more words and the parliamentary draftsmen have not been able to use their techniques because of the difficulties. Our view is that guidance is the right place for a definition, not primary legislation. We can be much clearer about what we mean by sustainable development, if we do not try to encapsulate the meaning in just a few words that will be argued over by lawyers and others whose objectives for particular developments might be different from those of local authorities, developers and the Government.
  On the other hand, we want to make sure that there is sustainable development, so there is a dilemma for the Government and for both Houses. At the end of the day, it is our responsibility to get it right, and it is not possible to do that by accepting either amendment. I rest my case not only on the document that we put forward but on the basis that the Government will come back and tweak the clause. I hope that that will

  487
  send the right signal, which is an important aspect of the legislation, without any unintended side consequences.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his rather brief reply. I understand that the Government want to tweak the clause, but they are still not responding to the problem of not having an easily recognisable definition of sustainable development in the Bill.
  I am not particularly bothered about Amendment No. 116, which relates to economic regeneration, but I have become deeply attached to my new clause. It has been tested out with parliamentary counsel. It has been tested legally, and it would be perfectly acceptable and cover all the nuances that the Minister wants.
  I shall not extend our discussion of Amendment No. 116 any further, but I give notice now that I shall try to get Amendment No. 119 into the Bill and shall move it at the appropriate stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Wilkins Baroness Wilkins moved Amendment No. 117:
  Page 21, line 25, at end insert—
  "(2A) For the avoidance of doubt "the achievement of sustainable development" mentioned in subsection (2) includes implementing policies which ensure that housing and local environments meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion so that all potential users, regardless of disability, age or gender can use them safely and easily."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it appears that this amendment makes it snow in London, as it did again last night. Fortunately, the snow has melted, but I must apologise to your Lordships for being unable to speak to the amendment, which I tabled for Committee, as ice and snow prevented me getting out of the house. Accessibility is subject to many forces, including the weather.
  The amendment would put accessibility, inclusive housing and an inclusive environment at the heart of the definition of sustainable development. If the structured environment is to change, if we are to provide housing that embraces people, whatever their state, and if we are to create a country that makes a reality of the equality of opportunity for which our policies strive, accessibility and inclusion must be the default position in all development. They need to be seen to be as essential as the provision of light and air. Access requirements need to be enshrined in the planning law, not tagged on as an afterthought.
  It will require a major culture change in the thinking of planners, developers and builders for inclusivity to be central to the planning system. That is why the coalition of organisations which back this amendment, including the Disability Rights Commission, the Town and Country Planning Association, Habinteg Housing Association and John Grooms is pressing for accessibility and inclusion explicitly to be defined on the face of the Bill as part of sustainable development. I look forward to the tweaks of the clause that the Minister has outlined.
  The guidance published on 24 February in planning policy statement 1 is welcome. But it will not in itself end the huge variation in the ways that local planning authorities address access to the built environment. Draft PPS1 is certainly heading in the right direction, and is helpful in relation to disability access, but the emphasis on the achievement of an adequate supply of accessible, inclusive housing and an accessible local environment as a central goal in the planning system needs to be placed up front.
  The fear of the organisations behind this amendment is that the guidance will not ensure that disability access policies get the priority that they deserve and that planning inspectors will not have a detailed enough understanding to assess whether or not strategies and schemes have adequately addressed access and inclusion. It will be left to planning authorities to determine their priorities according to regional and local conditions. If they feel that they ought to consult disabled people, they will. If not, then their spatial strategies or development schemes are likely to overlook access yet again.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the Government will go further to ensure that inclusive housing and inclusive environments are enshrined as central goals of the planning system. Do the Government intend to insist that planning authorities and regional spatial strategies follow the Greater London Authority's lead in requiring all new homes to meet lifetime home standards and setting targets of 10 per cent of new homes to be designed to be wheelchair accessible?
  What is planned now will create our environment for the next 50 to 100 years. There needs to be a major shift in awareness and culture if we are to build a society that is accessible for all. The Bill provides us with the opportunity to do so. I hope that my noble friend can give me greater assurance that this will be placed on the face of the Bill and that we shall seize this opportunity. I beg to move.
  6 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in previous debates on the Bill, I said how strongly I feel that the issue of access should be regarded as part of sustainable development. I would find it hard to put it in as the only item spelled out in any detail. I hope that the Minister will tell us that whatever he brings back at Third Reading—although it may be a hit early for him to anticipate that—will extend not just to the general concerns that we all have but to pinning down how the issues that the noble Baroness has raised can be addressed through the planning process. We are all interested in the mechanism, not in fancy, warm words. It is much more important than that. Therefore, I support the noble Baroness, although I am not sure whether this is the time that we shall achieve it. I am optimistic that the Minister will help us to do so by the time that the Bill leaves the House.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted to support the spirit of this amendment. Clearly, the provision should not be on the face of the Bill as there are far too

  489
  many complications to deal with in a simple amendment in primary legislation but it gives us a great opportunity to talk about it.
  The opportunity to make our built environment, and our environment generally, open to people with disabilities, to people of all ages and all facilities, depends on us doing it when we are doing new build. It is as we renew something in a major way that we have the chance to make this happen. It is a project for 100 years. It is certainly a project for 50 years. We must take a very long-term view on it in order to make it happen. Making changes to existing structures in a piecemeal way is very expensive so we have to be absolutely sure that when we do significant new build or significant refurbishment these matters are taken into account. To my mind, that means that they have to be at the heart of the planning system. It has to be something that, beyond a certain level of significance in a development, people cannot avoid taking into account and which they are encouraged to take into account for even quite small developments. I hope that we shall be able to get something very constructive. We have got so many very constructive things out of the Minister that I feel embarrassed about asking for another one. I would be delighted if we were able to move in that direction and produce something in secondary legislation that met all the wishes of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, wherever possible we all support the view that buildings should be friendly to people who are disabled but I underline "wherever possible". It is a matter of horses for courses. If one were to read what is proposed by the noble Baroness literally it could mean that any building of more than one storey had to have an elevator in it so that people who are unable to use stairs could use it. It is clearly impractical.
  On this general point, and on the role of government in legislating on this subject, it often strikes me as appalling that unrealistic obligations are pushed on to small schemes and small people—restaurants, for example—and that huge schemes or public schemes sail ahead with absolutely no concern for disabled people. The best and most obvious example to all of us is that of the London Underground system. It is staggering. Virtually no resources are used to improve access for the disabled. That is a much higher priority than this although, having said that, there will of course be housing for special needs of every sort, which is to be required and welcomed.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I refer to a mass transit system for moving hundreds of thousands of people. Have I upset the noble Baroness? I will finish on that point; I was just saying that I agree with the noble Lord's final point that the London Underground is a good example of a mass transit system that does not—
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister tempts me too much. We inherited the London Underground,
  490
  but it was the Government's PPP project that has left us with an inadequate scheme for improving it. I am sorry that I could not resist that when we are talking about where responsibility lies.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, that was all I was going to say anyway.
  I fully accept the reasons why my noble friend could not be here previously but the one great advantage of the way the Bill is progressing is that I now come with more weapons in the armoury than I had before; a flurry of documents has been published. I emphasise that planning policy statement 1, published last week, is a consultation draft. It is not the last word. I draw attention to the middle sentence of paragraph no. 1.19, which states:
  "Planning policies should address accessibility for all to jobs, health, housing, education, shops, leisure and community facilities".
  It makes it clear that development plans should be clear and comprehensive, with comprehensive and inclusive access policies. If the development does not address these issues, it cannot be sustainable. That would be our view. That can be put more easily in the guidance than in the Bill.
  A point was made about planning authorities, planning inspectors and others involved in the system. They sometimes make assumptions that the issue of access for disabled people is a matter for building regulations and not for planning. I agree. That is why we need to make it clear that we put such a high emphasis on design in Planning Policy Statement 1.
  Good design must take account of all the needs of members of society, including people with disabilities. That is made clear in paragraph 1.29. As I said in a previous debate, I will be coming back at Third Reading with a bagful of goodies that will include the point relating to design that I made in response to noble Lords from all four parts of the House. That matter is actively being dealt with as we speak. We will be coming back on that. I cannot say in what form that will be, but I am sure it will be a form acceptable to the House.
  I wish to make it clear that this is a consultation draft. Officials have welcomed discussions with the Disability Rights Commission and others on early drafts of Planning Policy Statement 1. Now that it is out in the open, there will be other comments and we are more than ready to listen. We need to look at it and ensure that we have made it clear for the policy makers outside. When we say that it is in the guidance and the planning policy statement, that will not be just a throwaway line. We must make sure we have made it absolutely clear.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, also mentioned the Lifetimes Homes standard being a requirement. I hate having to say things like this but it is in my briefing that an announcement will be made shortly about how the Government intend to take this forward. That is a wholly positive statement. We are on the case, and can come back to it at Third Reading.

  491
  I hope that "shortly" means between now and Third Reading, otherwise I shall need to have a better explanation then than I do now.
  I am not claiming in any way that the statement we published in Planning Policy Statement 1 has overtaken events—my noble friend could not be here in Committee or during the other debates. It is a consultation draft. The Government have put it on the table. We are more than prepared to listen and change the draft, if consultation brings that about. Some parts can be strengthened or extended to make sure that we get clarity and good information and guidance to those who will make the decisions in local planning authorities.
  I hope that that is sufficiently positive. It is intended to be positive. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendment. I hope that I am not disappointed by my noble friend's reply, and that his bag of goodies will include something that will be helpful to disabled people.
  The current built environment and the state of accessibility to housing for disabled people leaves so much to be desired, and there is so much to be done, that the planning policy guidance needs to be greatly strengthened in order for it to be crystal clear to developers that this is an issue that they have to address. They cannot ignore it. I look forward to more hope later, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.15 pm
  Lord Best Lord Best moved Amendment No. 118:
  After Clause 39, insert the following new clause
  "DIRECTOR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
  (1) A local planning authority's duties under the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) with respect to the appointment of officers shall (without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of that Act) include the duty of appointing a fit person to be the director of sustainable development and planning of the authority.
  (2) The officer appointed under subsection (1) shall have overall senior management responsibility for the functions set out in section 39."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the addition of this clause is supported by the Town and Country Planning Association and the Royal Town Planning Institute. It would require there to be an officer in local planning authorities with senior management responsibility for sustainable development and planning matters. Please note that the word "and" is needed in the title of this new clause.
  The clause is intended to boost the status of planners in local government. Planning has become of ever-greater importance in determining the character, prosperity and quality of life in every area. The Bill ushers in further responsibilities by introducing a new
  492
  statutory framework for planning related to sustainable development—Clause 39—which has not existed before.
  As we know, the granting or refusing of planning permission on behalf of the council can create or remove millions of pounds of land value at the stroke of a pen. Advising councillors and communities on these sensitive matters would seem to justify the employment by the local planning authority of a statutorily recognised officer. This should not be confused with a statutorily protected post, which gives the officers some extra protection against dismissal from their position.
  Statutory recognition is of a lesser order, but none the less signifies a status currently accorded to directors of social services, chief education officers, council solicitors and the chief officers responsible for finance. The Government have announced their intention to legislate for a statutory director of chidren's services.
  Undoubtedly, it would help senior officers concerned with planning to hold their own with these colleagues if their position carried a similar status. As we all know, there is constant haggling over priorities and resources between the various chief officers and heads of departments. Planning deserves to be represented by an individual at a similar level to these other senior staff.
  Not long ago, I led a DTI foresight group's visit to the Netherlands to look at their planning system. Planners there have not suffered the loss of reputation which has afflicted the planning profession in the UK—no doubt as a result of major mistakes back in the 1960s. In the Netherlands, to say that you work for the planning department is a proud boast; seldom is that the case here.
  Properly, the Government seek to up the game of planners with a £350 million injection of resources for—in the words of the Minister—the "culture change agenda". The Deputy Prime Minister has asked Sir John Egan to review ways in which recruitment, retention, training and professionalism of planners can be enhanced. His report will be published soon. To boost these efforts, the proposed new clause would be more than helpful to government in attracting high quality people into planning and keeping them there. It sends out a signal and it costs nothing.
  The wording of the clause is not controversial. It follows the wording of Section 532 of the Education Act 1996, which covers similar ground. Giving such public recognition, esteem and authority to senior planners can do nothing but good in helping the delivery of the Bill's objectives. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, our names are in support of the amendment. When it was first tabled I found it curious, because in my authority the executive

  493
  director of planning is just that. He is on the executive board of the authority and is in precisely the capacity that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has suggested should be the case in all other authorities. It never occurred to me that this might not be the situation across the country. It is abundantly clear that it is not.
  That is reprehensible. It must be proper and right that somebody who is not only properly qualified but also properly experienced in planning matters should be at the head of that department. If this requires a statutory framework for it to be taken for granted that that is the case in all local planning authorities, I support that. I am delighted to support the amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I take the points that have been made about the status of planners and the difficulties of recruitment and retention. As it happens, I was in Holland on Friday and met some people in the Amsterdam planning department, including a young man who was well qualified but was assisting with work on an informal basis. When we explained the difficulty with recruitment in this country, he said, "Where do I look? How do I come over? How do I get a job?". We explained the reality of the cost of living in London, but that was his immediate response. In London, we depend on some good planners from Australia and New Zealand, in particular, to ensure that staffing problems are not exacerbated—or, as I read in a wonderful malapropism in a report last week, "exasperated".
  Having said that, we find it difficult to support the amendment. I examined the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 to find out what local authorities had to do when appointing officers and deciding on their establishment. It had never occurred to me to consider that before. Section 112(1) of the Act states that,
  "a local authority shall appoint such officers as they think necessary for the proper discharge by the authority of such of their … functions as fall to be discharged by them".
  As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, there are certain specified officers whom authorities must appoint, but, otherwise, the clause ended a previous obligation to appoint listed officers. That existed 30 years ago, and I wonder whether it would be right for us to seek to reverse the trend, as that change was from a centrally imposed obligation about who needed to be on the establishment to greater discretion.
  Perhaps more importantly, would it reverse the entirely proper trend, or objective, of mainstreaming the sustainable development duty? The noble Lord, Lord Best, said that that is exactly what is intended to be achieved by the post. One could view that either way. In any event, we need to be better convinced than we are about intervening in the exercise of a local authority's autonomy in that or any other area. On the
  494
  terminology of the new clause, I wondered what was in the noble Lord's mind when referring to the appointment of a "fit person". One would hope that no unfit person would be appointed.
  Perhaps the Government can help me with something that was troubling me last night. However Clause 40 ends up—whether the provision states "with a view to contributing to sustainable development", or whatever—will the monitoring officer of an authority have a role if that duty is not complied with? My experience is the same as that of the noble Baroness. I should expect there to be a director of planning; I should also expect directors of other departments to have sustainable development very much in their sights. But will the monitoring officer have a role in ensuring that that duty is exercised?
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Best, retabling the amendment. I have a wealth of notes about what we have done to raise the esteem of planning, resources and skills. Sir John Egan is considering those issues generally. But what noble Lords really want to know is what the Government are going to do about it.
  There is also the point about giving local government discretion to appoint its officers. Certain officers—finance officers, I suppose; and I think that there was another one.
  Lord Hanningfield: Monitoring.
  Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, the monitoring officer. That came out of the poll tax legislation, if I recall correctly—the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
  We have an idea whose time has come. We want to discuss it with the Local Government Association. We will contact it before the end of the week to discover its views; we have not done so yet. No one here spoke on behalf of the LGA as such. Education and social services are slightly different, because their services are directly related to individual persons. I understand the case for having someone designated in those areas. Nevertheless, their title does not always include social services; that varies between authorities. Housing is another such example.
  However, given the thrust of the Bill and the climate of cultural change that we want, we intend to explore that matter with the Local Government Association. I shall write to noble Lords on the precise question about the monitoring officer's role, if that is acceptable. In view of that positive response, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
  Lord Best: My Lords, I underline planners' appreciation of the Government's other efforts to enhance their status. In the light of those positive comments and the thought that the Minister's bag may contain one more such goodie, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 119:
  After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—"
  "MEANING OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
  Sustainable development is development which preserves or enhances the human and natural environment."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords—
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, she has already spoken to it.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have checked that this is debatable at this point and should like to make a short explanation.
  Lord Rooker: This is an ego trip.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I do not think it is an ego trip. As a matter of courtesy to the noble Baroness and your Lordships, I should like to say a word or two about why we will not be supporting the amendment—which I should have thought might be welcome to the noble Lord.
  Lord Hanningfield: Perhaps the noble Baroness will change her mind, then.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, the Minister may persuade me to go through the other Lobby.
  The Minister has already told us that he will come back to this issue on Third Reading. We obviously want to see what that offer will include. Attached as I fear the noble Baroness is to the amendment, life has moved on since the definition was composed. We could debate the issue at great length, which I shall not do, but it implies that other matters are excluded. I am now much more accustomed to thinking of sustainability in terms of the pillars of environment, social improvement and economics. Although I understand that the human environment could be construed as extending to those, it is not obvious that it does so. Each of those matters—and, indeed, the conservation of natural resources—is sine qua non.
  The definition in Amendment No. 119 is not as extensive as it should be. I am quite attracted by the Government's attitude and approach, which is to allow for flexibility as thinking moves forward and to ensure that any definition is not so inflexible as to be exclusive and unhelpful rather than helpful.
  I apologise if that was an improper intervention. I thought it right to explain it just before the vote.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall reply to the noble Baroness and start by apologising to her.
  I am new to this place. I have been here less than three years, and I cannot get used to the idea of grouping amendments, having a debate on the group and then coming back to them now before a vote. I am used to the workings in the other place, where there is
  496
  more order. If I explained what we had just done to people in the other place, they would think we were barmy. We have debated that group of amendments.
  I realise that that may be the rules, or should I say that there are no rules here. That is the point. I am told that there is self-regulation. I cannot get used to the idea, but I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness and her friends.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
  6.32 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 119) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 143.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Arran, E.

  Kingsland, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Laird, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Lucas, L.

  Blackwell, L.

  Luke, L.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Byford, B.

  Mancroft, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Mar, C.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Marlesford, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Colwyn, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Courtown, E.

  Montrose, D.

  Cox, B.

  Moynihan, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Denham, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Peel, E.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Flather, B.

  Reay, L.

  Fookes, B

  Rees, L.

  Fowler, L.

  Renton, L.

  Freeman, L.

  St John of Fawsley, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

  Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Hanningfield, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. L

  Henley, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Windlesham, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Barker, B.

  Addington, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Best, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Borrie, L.

  Alli, L.

  Brennan, L.

  Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

  Bridges, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Burlison, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  Bach, L.

  Carter, L.

  Christopher, L.

  497

  Clark of Windermere, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Cobbold, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  McNally, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Crawley, B.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  David, B.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

  Mitchell, L.

  Desai, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Newby, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Elder, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Pendry, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Falkender, B.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Powell of Bayswater, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.[Teller]

  Prashar, B.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Fearn, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Freyberg, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Gale, B.

  Razzall, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Robertson of Port Ellen, L.

  Gilbert. L

  Rooker, L.

  Golding, B.

  Roper, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L,

  Goodhart, L.

  St.John of Bletso, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Simon, V

  Greenway, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Stoddart of Swindon L

  Hamwee, B.

  Taverne, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Harrison L

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Haskel, L

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Thornton, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Triesman, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Varley, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Walpole, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Warner, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Jones, L.

  Watson of Richmond, L.

  Kilclooney, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Layard, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Lipsey, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  6.42 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 120:
  After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
  "REASONS FOR EXERCISE OF POWERS BY SECRETARY OF STATE
  The Secretary of State must provide reasons for the exercise by him of any of his powers or duties under Parts 1 to 3 of this Act."
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 120 proposes a new clause which states that wherever the Secretary of State exercises any of his powers or duties under Parts 1 to 3 of the Bill, he should publish his reasons. If it is important for a local planning authority to publish reasons, it is even more important for the Secretary of State to do so The Secretary of State is significantly further removed than the local planning authority from those who would be affected by a decision. Hence, the need is greater still for the publication of any decision that he makes. That would allow some insight into the factors that have led to a certain decision being taken. Where there is a grievance, publishing reasons would open the door to discovering whether the grievance was well founded.
  Throughout discussions of the Bill, we have made it very clear that we regard planning as a matter for local authorities, which would have the experience and local knowledge to take decisions on those matters. In particular, regional functions, local development and development, covered by Parts 1 to 3 of the Bill, are areas where surely local discretion is a better way forward than excessive involvement by the Secretary of State.
  While we appreciate that there may be circumstances where the Secretary of State has a role and should exercise his powers, in the interests of transparency it would be beneficial for him to give his reasons in circumstances where he exercises those powers under Parts 1 to 3 of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, in earlier debates, particularly in Committee, we made it clear that our approach throughout Parts 1 and 2 is that for the more significant substantive powers of the Secretary of State it is right to place a duty in the Bill to give reasons when he proposes changes to draft revisions of, for example, regional spatial strategies. It is appropriate that they should be in the Bill because they are very substantive powers.
  A requirement for the Secretary of State to provide reasons for the exercise of any and every power in the first 39 clauses is not consistent with our approach. It would not be sensible or practical. Nevertheless, as I indicated in Committee and earlier discussions, we want to ensure that the Bill fully reflects our policy of giving reasons. Work is under way on that issue at present. We expect rather than hope to bring forward amendments at Third Reading. I therefore hope that that will satisfy the noble Baroness.
  Parts 1 and 2 are one issue, but the amendment also extends to Part 3. That is a matter which, currently, we are considering. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness does not press us again. A reminder was useful: but we are working on it and, it is to be hoped, we will come back at Third Reading with an amendment that will find favour because it goes to the heart of the issue. As much as possible, whatever the decision, we want the Secretary of State to give reasons so that people understand what has happened.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that reply. In his wisdom, I hope that the

  499
  Minister will see the benefit of including this up to and including Part 3. From what he said, I take it that this matter is under consideration. For the time being, I withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 121:
  After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
  "HIGH QUALITY DESIGN
  (1) This section applies to any person who, or body which, exercises any function—

  (a) under Part 1 in relation to a regional spatial strategy;

  (b) under Part 2 in relation to local development documents;

  (c) under Part 6 in relation to the Wales Spatial Plan or a local development plan.

  (2) The person or body must exercise the function with a view to contributing to the achievement of high quality design in the built environment.
  (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the person or body must have regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued or prescribed by—

  (a) the Secretary of State for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) and (b);

  (b) the National Assembly for Wales for the purposes of subsection (1)(c)."

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I apologise on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, who is in Shanghai. Perhaps he is recruiting some more town planners for the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I know that he would like to be here, and I shall make an inadequate substitute. Therefore, I shall not take long.
  By and large, all my arguments were made in Committee where I was pleased to receive support from the Minister. I have been pleased by what he has said since. I think that I have even detected the Deputy Prime Minister saying some helpful things in the newspaper. So I am very optimistic that, if not today, at Third Reading we shall get something that will address the problem: that something is put in legislation to give local authorities the ability to withstand some extremely large and powerful contractors, and dare say to them, "No, take this away. Make it better". That is the position that we all want to achieve. I have great faith that that is what we will see.
  I suppose that in a different system where there was a free market in housing and housing supply was occasionally greater than demand, which has not been the situation for a long time, developers might compete on the basis of good design. Under the current situation, there is no hope of that. We are operating in a shortage situation and always will be controlled by planning. I suspect that there will always be something of a shortage, particularly in some kinds of housing. Therefore, it is very important that design is in our system to control what housing is produced. It needs to be there in a way that gives local authorities the ability to stand up for it in what can be extremely difficult arguments, as many noble Lords said in
  500
  Committee. When looking at buildings around us, we all know that those arguments have been lost on too many occasions. I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: My Lords, as in Committee, I support the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Rogers, in highlighting the importance of design in the new planning process. Since our previous debate I have had the opportunity to look at the Consultation Paper on Planning Policy Statement 1. There are many things with which I agree in paragraph 1.27 headed, "Sustainable Development and Design". Earlier, I spoke about sustainability and, in particular, energy.
  I especially agree that quality design,
  "is a key element in achieving sustainable development",
  and that,
  "Good design is not just about the architecture".
  We have touched on other issues today. The consultation paper states that good design is about functionality and the impact of a building,
  "on the overall character, quality and sustainability of an area including resource efficiency (for example energy consumption).
  For me, that is a very wide area.
  I also agree with the statement:
  "There should be no acceptance of ill-conceived designs which do not contribute positively to making places better for people",
  which was an underlying theme in our last discussion.
  One of the things I feel sorry about is that in many local authorities design is not high enough on the agenda when considering developments. In other areas we see that despite the difficulties one faces when one tries to improve the design of a planning application, some local authorities manage it well. That can be seen by going around.
  In another guise I was the Member of Parliament for Christchurch for some years and I admired the way the local planners had vision about how they wanted the town to be. In planning applications they involved local architects in creating a good quality of design in the buildings. Yet I have been to other places where it is obvious that no one could care less about their environment.
  Over the years, having spent a great deal of time living in and visiting Scandinavia, I have become convinced that the majority of people's well-being is affected—not all people; I have made the point before that some people see nothing around them—by their surroundings. They certainly contribute to my sense of well-being. Many years ago I stayed in an awful bed and breakfast while in Cambridge visiting my first husband when he was a student. It was a dark place with a horribly dark bathroom, and I felt miserable when I stayed there.
  In proposing the importance of design in the planning system, none of us thinks that particular architectural styles must be imposed. That is not what it is about; and I am sure the Government do not think that is what it is about. The places that we find attractive and that have endured over the years are usually those that have been well designed and planned. I can think of two that I mentioned on the

  501
  previous occasion: first, brick flats in Millbank, built by London county council in 1901. They endure today and are still a pleasant environment in which to live. Secondly, going back even further, Lord North Street, which I walk down every morning, is the same. It is an important issue.
  I picked up some of the Minister's earlier comments that it is to be hoped that at the next stage the Government will come forward with something that will satisfy our desire to see design become an important part of the planning process, not just in some of the best authorities but everywhere.
  Lord Alli: My Lords, while I have come late to the debate, I speak as one who recognises good design as important and as an important part of the planning process. As my noble friends Lord Rogers and Lady Blackstone could not be in their places today, I am happy to add my support from these Benches to the amendment.
  Design should always be at the heart of the planning process; much was said about that in previous debates. The Minister himself advocated that route. Noble Lords have argued previously that design should feature in the Bill, and I agree. That would send out a clear and loud message that poor design quality is unacceptable. We should give local authorities that want to raise the quality of their built environment something that gives them the necessary confidence and support to challenge planning applications on design grounds.
  Less confident planning authorities are often fearful of taking on developers on design grounds, not least for fear of litigation. A clear reference to design in the Bill would go a long way. Far from being a burden on planning authorities, such a duty to consider design quality would be of enormous assistance.
  I am not advocating a definition of good design. Although I think that I would be a good judge of good design, such a definition does not belong in the Bill. That would be too inflexible. Useful guidance can be provided through policy guidance by government. A primary legislative duty backed up by genuinely useful guidance is just what planners and communities need. I hope that the Minister will aid our quest in ensuring that good design features in the planning process.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, at a previous stage I made a small intervention to say that in my experience one was usually guided by the fact that design is subjective and therefore could not really be tested. I always thought it extremely strange that one should not be able to suggest that particular designs were appropriate for particular neighbourhoods and areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that we should not be able to interfere in architectural design, but in some cases it is important that we should be able to do so, if a bad neighbour is building in a particular setting.
  Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I did not make myself clear. I said that when talking about design we are not imposing a particular architectural style. It is
  502
  not about saying that it always has to be a certain way. It is not a straitjacket, but that does not mean that architecture is not an important consideration.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, perhaps I did not express myself clearly. As I understood it, the point was that the architecture was important but it could not be the prime mover. Architecture can be and is important. The question of the internal design of a building is a different aspect, but the environment design is fundamental. We should look at what has happened to some of the large estates; for example, in my borough we have spent a long time trying to unscramble some of the vagaries of the 1960s. We have been left with large local authority estates with winding corridors and places with many spooky corners, where no one is particularly comfortable. It is important that such areas can be taken into account.
  I support this move because it is different from those prevalent in the past. It would change attitudes in planning and therefore I support it.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I wanted to bring in the Sustainable Communities element. I have spoken privately to the Minister about it, as in Essex we are concerned with the Thames Gateway, Harlow and so on—big regeneration projects where design is important. I know that the Government are keen to build houses quickly in many such areas. Essex County Council is very involved in the regeneration and redevelopment of Basildon; it has a team of people there.
  County councils are often the only bodies with the people and resources to do that. In largely removing county councils from the planning process the Government might be shooting themselves in the foot over some of the design issues and the speed of development. Will the Minister comment on how soon we will know what is in the Government's mind about Third Reading? We might want to table amendments at Third Reading and we need to know the Government's position. Will he comment on the speed and the sustainable communities? It might not be the type of development and design that we would like, if there is not enough time to think and plan it and the right resource and the right type of people to help us do it.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I take the final point, although I cannot be specific about the dates of Third Reading—we will fix them as quickly as possible. We had an interesting debate in Committee in which I said that one way or another we would include design in the Bill. I cannot at this moment give chapter and verse on how that will be achieved. Three or four options are being discussed with the planning Ministers. We have some ideas about how we can bring it successfully into the Bill. I am optimistic that we will find an acceptable provision; it just has to get through the red tape and machinery of government. We will give as much advance warning as possible.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, is right about the Sustainable Communities Plan. It will be involved in many parts of the country with some of the larger

  503
  developments and in the housing renewal areas covered by Pathfinders. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment will be involved; that is part of our policy and why it received a substantial increase in its resources in the spending round. Although the sums were relatively small, they marked a gigantic advance in resources. We are determined to ensure that the sustainable communities programme will be sustainable and thus, by definition, will incorporate good design. Almost by definition, poor design is not sustainable.
  We shall come back to this at Third Reading, although long before that we shall indicate what the Government intend to do so that colleagues can better understand the position. I shall be happy to put the proposal in the context of the sustainable communities programme and the other documents recently published to emphasise that this is a crucial part of what we are doing.
  Although we are doing this anyway, given the strength of the debate in Committee, it has become clear that a provision ought to be put on to the face of the Bill. However, that is to be done while arguing at the same time that other issues should not be so included, and we think that we have a formula that enables us to do that.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall not hold my breath until Third Reading, but the fact that we will have something at least a few days before and thus have a chance to digest and talk about it in order to decide how to address it is extremely valuable.
  I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, in particular my friend the noble Lord, Lord Alli, who is new to the debate. On such occasions it is most helpful to receive support from behind the Minister, who cannot turn that far round without getting a crick in his neck. I shall rely on the noble Lord and his noble friends to be present at Third Reading to cheer on their noble friend on the Front Bench.
  I hope that the provision will be strong. I know that the draft of PPS1 is sensible, stressing that one should not seek unreasonably to impose a style. But there are times when that has to be done. If there is a concept of how a city centre should look and work, it will require forms of design that can fit within some form of tramline so that the whole thing works together. There is a difference between the city centres of, say, Newcastle upon Tyne and Hull which makes it obvious how much the spirit of a place is rooted in its design. Newcastle demonstrates an integration of style and layout that makes the place a pleasure to be in, both uplifting and grand. The same is much more difficult to say of Hull, which had the bad luck to be bombed flat in the war and rebuilt quite soon afterwards.
  Not every local authority will produce such a vision, but where authorities do so, and it is one presumably shared by the local populace, it is very important that they should be able to have a say in how their town or
  504
  city will look. One of the features of the past 20 years has been how cities such as Newcastle have reinvented themselves through design, developing an enormous spirit of place and time. Part of that process is the very important right to have the choice, when deciding how a place should look as it grows, to say, "No, that style does not fit this place. We want something in tune with our overall vision". I hope that we shall see a strong provision along those lines, and I look forward to seeing it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 40 [Local development orders]:
  [Amendment No. 122 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 122A:
  Page 23, line 7, at end insert "and must provide reasons for that direction"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 122A, which may provide the Minister with another opportunity to give the House good news. The amendment seeks to provide that if the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales think that a local development order made under new Section 61 B is unsatisfactory and give a direction for it to be modified, they should give reasons.
  I prepared this amendment before I received a welcome letter from the Minister saying that, as he had indicated previously, the Government are sympathetic to this point. However, I am not sure that I am reading the note correctly because it mentions "revoking" an order. It may be that I am being overly optimistic. At the time the Minister wrote that he thought the Bill should be amended to take the point on board and would table amendments to that effect at the next opportunity. His Amendment No. 123A seems to achieve that. I had hoped that the amendment would extend to cover the point raised in Amendment No. 122A; that is, the direction for modification and not only the revocation. Perhaps I will be able to tempt the Minister to take the point a little further. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has accurately predicted the outcome of our short discussion. We said in Committee that we had some sympathy with the original amendment. We have decided that the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales should be required to give reasons for modifying a local development order. We would in any case expect the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to give reasons for modifying a local development order, but we will amend the Bill to make it clear that they will be required to do so.
  We have also decided that we should make clear that if the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales revoke a local development order, they should again be required to give reasons for doing so. We shall table a further amendment in due course to give effect to that as well.

  505
  I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I think that I should do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 123 had been withdrawn front the Marshalled List.]
  Schedule 1 [Local development orders: procedure]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 123A:
  Page 102, line 12, at end insert ", revocation"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will enable a development order to include provision as to the revocation of a local development order. We have already consulted on draft amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 which sets out the procedures a local planning authority should follow when revoking a local development order. For example, we want to prescribe the publicity arrangements a local planning authority should follow should it revoke a local development order.
  We decided that the Bill as drafted did not enable us to provide for this in a development order. This amendment will put that right. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 42 [Statement of development principles]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 124:
  Page 25, line 11, leave out "must" and insert "may"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 124, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 125, 126, 127 and 129 in the group. These amendments aim to give more discretion to local authorities in the issue of statements of development principles. They will prevent the provision of statements of development principles from placing an undue burden on local planning authorities and will allow authorities to refuse to grant a statement of development principles on the basis of insufficient information.
  When I spoke to these amendments in Committee, I did not feel that the Government had truly got to grips with the concerns we sought to express. Amendment No. 124 aims to give local authorities more discretion in the issue of statements of development principles than is proposed in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 are complementary to that aim in that they support specific aspects of local authorities' discretion. These three amendments would enable local authorities to decline to issue statements of development principles on the basis of insufficient information.
  Amendment No. 125 is a probing amendment which simply seeks clarification from the Government on whether it will be local authorities which ultimately decide whether the development plan is material to the request for a statement of development principles.
  Finally, Amendment No. 129 is a probing amendment designed to test the Government's thinking on how they propose to minimise the level of deliberate frustration within the planning system. Further, if Amendment No. 124 is accepted, Clause 42(5) would in any case be unnecessary.
  We strongly believe that the Government have not yet made the case for how statements of development principles will add value to the planning system in this country. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government were placing increasing emphasis on the importance of pre-application discussions. The formalisation of this through statements of development principles may provide developers and local authorities with an additional tool for building up an agreed development prospectus for a site. Nevertheless, the Government should explain exactly how they envisage statements of development principles working on the ground.
  We think that statements of development principles are a classic example of something that seems like a good idea in theory but is actually a major headache when it comes to implementation—and can even be counter-productive. There will be an unnecessary burden on local authorities and it is not clear how they will achieve greater transparency in the pre-application process. The statements risk becoming a major bureaucratic process in their own right.
  As far as I can see, there is no discernible benefit to applicants, local planning authorities or the public. If the overall aim is to address the weaknesses associated with outline planning permission, why not address those problems directly, for example by encouraging discussions in the application process between developers and planning departments?
  The interested organisations that I have spoken to, including the Council for the Protection of Rural England and London First, as well as many other professional planners, have all spoken out against statements of development principles. There simply is no support for them. Amendments Nos. 124 and 126 are aimed at ensuring that local planning authorities will not feel compelled to approve or refuse applications when they simply do not have sufficient evidence by which to judge the merits of an application. This could happen because, as the Bill currently stands, there is no provision to allow the local authority to decline a request to issue a statement of development principles on the grounds of insufficient information. Hundreds of people will ask for these statements—people are very confused about it—and that could lead to a tremendous workload for a department that could not cope with it.
  Local authorities may be put in the position where they do not have enough confidence in their legal position to say that the application is entirely unacceptable, which I believe is the only grounds on which they can decline to issue a statement of development principles. However, they may also feel that they have not been provided with sufficient information, such as information on design or infrastructure, on which to base their decisions. As

  507
  organisations such as CPRE have pointed out, this would put pressure on local authorities to issue statements of development principles that agree with the proposed developments and then spend valuable time and resources trying to decide what safeguards and conditions should be placed on them to meet any eventuality.
  The Minister said in Committee that if insufficient information were provided, the statement of development principles would be correspondingly general. However, if is to be so general as to be meaningless, why have it? A statement of development principles will be an important material consideration in the final decision on the planning permission. We therefore need to give local authorities more discretion on how they issue them.
  Amendment No. 127 addresses our concerns that the statement of development principles does not have to take into account whether the proposed development would require an environmental impact assessment. We are aware that the Government have stated that because the statement of development principles does not itself grant consent to allow a development to go ahead, an environmental impact assessment is not a requirement. However, we would like a reassurance from the Minister that this arrangement, whereby the principle of a development has been agreed prior to the outcome of an environmental impact assessment, will not undermine the integrity of the environmental impact assessment and its capacity to reach a different conclusion from that reached in the statement of development principles.
  As I already mentioned, with regard to the workload of planning departments, we also believe that statements of development principles would mark an unacceptable shift in the burden of planning applications from the applicant to the local authority. This is not just an argument about planning authorities having insufficient information and then dealing with the consequences. We are also raising it because the number of requests for statements of development principles will be much higher than that of outline planning applications. This flows from the fact that anybody can ask the local authority for a statement of development principles.
  In relation to Amendment No. 129 I would like some reassurance from the Minister that the new procedures for statements of development principles will not be used as a spoiling tactic to frustrate legitimate development. This could certainly happen, given that anyone will be able to request a statement of development principles. Our concern is that in some circumstances local authorities might be asked to determine requests for statements of development principles before the information upon which requests could be judged is available.
  Clause 42 states that a local authority "may" decline to issue a statement of development principles before the end of the two-year period if it disagrees with the principles of the development. However, as I understand it, a local planning authority could quite
  508
  legitimately issue a new statement of development principles that agrees with a development proposal before the end of the two-year period.
  Is subsection (5) a mechanism through which to deal with any potential exploitation of statements of development principles by those who just want to stop all development regardless of its benefits? If it is, it is still unfair that the burden falls on planning departments. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Winston were here. I am not in favour of cloning, but I have been thinking during this series of debates that we should be able to clone planners. It is possibly the only way forward.
  I believe that deleting Clause 42(5) would be in line with the preceding amendments. The fundamental point of those amendments is that it would be much simpler and more democratic to give a local planning authority the discretion to decide whether to issue statements of development principles in respect of a particular development.
  7.15 pm
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock and I have put our names to a number of these amendments. We very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield said. It is hard to find anyone who supports the direction taken by the Government on this matter. If that sounds too harsh, conversely we support the Government's consideration of whether outline planning permission should be required to include more detail. As I understood it, that was one of the Government's considerations when considering whether to abolish outline planning permission. I cannot think about statements of development principles without at the same time thinking about outline planning permission, which is why I put the two together.
  We need to know from the Minister how the thinking and the consultation on this matter is progressing and when decisions might be taken. I am very uneasy about deciding legislation when we know that there are other ideas in the pipeline and the Government are looking to leave their options open through primary legislation. I am not at all comfortable with that. I can see that I am not alone in that view, but Hansard will not know who nodded in agreement.
  We have talked about the problems with outline permissions and the lesson that more detail is necessary. One has that in spades in the case of statements of development principles. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield talked about the increase in workload that this provision forebodes for local planning authorities. A part of this will be to consider how they will deal with requests for statements when they will more or less have to compose the application, or, at any rate, understand what the application for the statement in itself implies.
  I did not mean to add our names to Amendment No. 125. I accepted at the previous stage that it was not the best of the amendments on offer. I wanted to add our

  509
  names to Amendment No. 126, which refers to "sufficient information". I accept the point made by the Minister at the previous stage that the amendment in itself is ineffective to achieve what we are arguing about. However, it makes the point.
  As to Amendment No. 127, the Minister said at the previous stage that the matter would be dealt with in secondary legislation. Perhaps he will explain today where there is a regulation-making power relating to proposed new Section 61E. It may be in the 1990 Act or it may be one of the matters that I have not identified correctly. However, if the Government are relying in their arguments on the fact that regulations may be made to achieve some of what we are seeking, I should like to be assured as to the mechanism for making the regulations. It may be that the power is within subsection (7) of new Section 61E, which refers to a development order, but it is not immediately obvious to me that that is the case.
  The noble Lord also referred to the delays inherent in this process because of its somewhat amorphous nature. That would go wholly against what the Government are trying to achieve. Abolishing outline permission would leave developers without the certainty they want and the fundable permission they need. As I say, no one seems to support the process except those who have composed statements of development principles. Perhaps the Minister can also explain what support there has been from outside Parliament to give the Government the confidence to include this in the Bill in the first place.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I support what my noble friends have said. I hope that, in replying, the Minister will look across the Dispatch Box at my two noble friends on the Front Bench and notice that my noble friend Lord Hanningfield is worried about his planning department being overburdened and that my noble friend Lady Hanham has no worries at all about her parking control department being overburdened. In fact, travelling her streets, it is easier to get away from flies in Australia than traffic wardens in Chelsea. That is because there is a proper rate of charging for traffic wardens in Chelsea. You pay £3 a minute in the better areas—or, rather, £3 an hour; £3 a minute would be high even for Chelsea. My noble friend stings her customers royally and runs the division at a profit.
  The difficulty with planning departments is that the fees have been so low for so long that we cannot pay planners properly nor staff the departments properly. We have to go to Australia to find staff because no one wants to train to be a planner. To reverse this, we need a proper level of fees. Whatever the merits of these statements—the noble Lord knows that I think they are a lovely idea but they will never fly; they are not right—if we are going to have them, let us charge a proper level of fees. If we charge a decent level of fees we will be able to afford the planning departments to deal with them and people will not feel like chucking in applications on the willy-nilly; they will wait and think carefully if they are going to be done for a thousand or two for making one of these applications.
  510
  There is a lot to be said for getting fees on a proper level. If we do that, many of the fears we have about overburdening the system will disappear because we will be funding it properly and it will simply be a question of running it well rather than trying to imagine how you will deal with ever increasing burdens inside a shrinking budget.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I hesitate to assure my noble friend that if there was any question of these statements of development principles coming into being, there is no doubt that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea would ensure that proper fees were charged and that we made sufficient money out of the system.
  I reinforce what has been said about the outline planning permission. At the moment it looks like the Government are minded to ditch it in favour of the statement of development principles, which is a very poor substitute. Outline planning permission has served not only local authorities but also developers extremely well over the years. It provides the "bankability" of a scheme. The statement of development principles will not do that. There is no way that any bank will put forward money for a developer on the back of a statement of development principles. All it is likely to do is cause confusion within the network of development proposals. We shall end up with endless statements of development principles on innumerable properties where there is no intention of developing them. It will be easy to ask for one and this will cause a need for extra planning officers.
  In my borough we shall ensure that we make something from it, but I very much hope that we shall not have to do so.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is an important issue. I am conscious of the hour but I must stick to my notes on this. I shall not use everything I have got, but I want to give substantive answers given the fact that discussions are ongoing.
  I wish to get two specific issues out of the way first so that I do not forget to raise them. We shall be consulting in the summer of this year on a proposed fee regime for statements of development principles; and, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the power to make a development order under new Section 61E(7) is contained in Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is why, suspect, she could not find it.
  Amendments Nos. 124 and 126 together would give the local planning authority discretion on whether or not to decide to issue a statement of development principles. In our previous debate I stated that where an application for a statement of development principles is received, a local planning authority should be required to come to a decision regardless of the level of information provided.
  It should not be discretionary to provide this kind of advice. I do not see how that would help the overall process. If a developer asks for advice on a proposed

  511
  development through a statement of development principles he should be entitled to receive a response. We have said previously that a minimum amount of information will be necessary to identify where the proposed development will be and the person making the request for a statement of development principles. We do not wish to make it compulsory to provide other details.
  If the request for a statement of development principles lacks information on some aspects of the development, the statement of development principles issued by the local planning authority will say so. We want statements of development principles to be flexible enough for both simple and complex questions to be asked. It should not be compulsory for a developer to submit as much information with a statement of development principles as he would for a planning application.
  As to Amendment No. 125—I have heard a partial apology for it—as I said before, we do not believe the amendment is necessary. The provision mirrors existing requirements—for instance, where local planning authorities are required to have regard to the development plan as far as it is material to the determination of the planning application. There can be no need to have regard to the development plan if it is not material to the application. It will be for the local planning authority to decide whether or not it thinks the development plan is material to the application.
  As to Amendment No. 127, we recognise the importance an environmental impact assessment has in the planning system but we do not believe that it is necessary to include specific requirements on environmental impact assessments on the face of the Bill. It is important to remember that a request for a statement of development principles is not an application for planning permission. If a positive statement of development principles is granted, it is not in any form a consent for planning permission. It is simply a way of finding out whether a development might be suitable for a particular site and of identifying the kind of issues that a developer would need to consider before he submits an application for planning permission.
  As I have already pointed out, it follows that we do not want to require developers to submit as much detail with a request for a statement of development principles as we would for a planning application. The statement of development principles would take place at an early stage. At that early stage, it is unlikely that there will always be sufficient information available to enable all the likely significant environmental impacts to be identified. In those circumstances, it would be difficult for the local planning authority to make a proper screening opinion on the need for an environmental impact assessment.
  Moreover, if the amount of detail required to carry out a screening opinion is available, the developer may be more likely to apply for outline planning permission. Nevertheless, if on the available information, the local planning authority considers
  512
  that the nature of the proposed development is one for which an environmental impact assessment might be required under the relevant regulations, the statement of development principles that it issues will indicate that any application for planning permission in respect of development agreed to in principle might be subject to the provision of an environmental statement with any subsequent application. If it is not apparent that an environmental impact assessment is required when the statement of development principles is issued, the local planning authority will still be able to require one when the application for planning permission is submitted if it is then evident that one is required.
  In respect of Amendment No. 129, Clause 61E(5) would allow a local planning authority to decline to issue a statement of development principles where a valid statement of development principles has already been issued. Its chief aim is to protect the local planning authority from duplicating work that it has already done. The removal of subsection (5) would result in the local planning being required to consider every request it receives for a statement of development principles, whether or not it has already considered an identical one. I cannot see the value of requiring a local planning authority and those consulted about a statement of development principles to go through a process they have already been through.
  As I explained in Committee, Clause 61E(5) does not prevent a local planning authority from reconsidering a request for a statement of development principles if it has been revised to address the reasons why a previous statement of development principles, or part of one, had been disagreed with.
  Amendments Nos. 147 and 150 would retain outline planning permission in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. We discussed those amendments in Committee. On 29 January, we said that we were considering the retention of outline planning permission as set out in a Written Statement by the planning Minister, Keith Hill, on 15 December 2003. Retention would be on the basis that applications for outline planning permission met our objectives. Those objectives are that outline planning permission provides the opportunity for greater community involvement and a level of information that enables local authorities to assess all the significant environmental impacts from the proposed developments.
  The Minister also stated on 15 December that the further information that should accompany applications for outline planning permission would need to cover the key design principles. As I have again confirmed today, we indicated that we would include the word "design" in the Bill. We also said in earlier debates that discussions with representatives of interested parties, including the development industry, were continuing. Those discussions have continued since 29 January in a positive and constructive manner. The concept of a statement of design principles is part of the discussion. The British

  513
  Property Federation, the House Builders Federation and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors have welcomed the Written Statement of 15 December.
  Some work remains to be done on the nature of the information that would need to be provided with applications for outline planning permission. The Government still need to be satisfied that the information will meet our objectives, including the opportunity for greater community involvement. I hope that we will be able to comment further soon on outline planning permission. I cannot clarify whether "comment further soon" means before or after Third Reading, but it is clear that I will need to take the matter further at Third Reading than has been the case tonight. However, discussions with interested parties are continuing in the way that I have described. That is why we cannot agree to the amendments. I therefore hope that my detailed run-through of our current position on all the amendments—although it has not been as detailed as it could have been—will satisfy all noble Lords this evening. As I have said, we will return to the matter at Third Reading.
  Lord Hanningfield: M y Lords, the second part of the Minister's answer was rather better than the first. To a lot of people who are involved with the matter in the outside world, the statement of development principles is almost the most unpopular part of the whole legislation. As my noble friend Lady Hanham and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, developers depend on planning applications to resource the funding for development. Outline planning permission has moved on considerably in the past few years. So much work is done on outline planning permissions for major developments now that they are almost statements of development principles. Therefore, the second part of the Minister's answer, about the planning Minister's Written Statement, was helpful.
  However, on the first part, I perhaps did not make all my points clearly enough. Everyone is concerned that we will see a lot of requests for statements of development principles by people who want to abort or stop development. The Minister spoke about developers making applications for statements. We are concerned about the hundreds of other people who do not want to develop anything, but who want to stop development or merely to find out what might happen to a particular field next to their house. The Government have not taken that on board. It is a matter not only of developers applying for statements, but of all the other people applying for them too.
  It is important that the Minister clarifies the Government's position before Third Reading, because it is a difficult part of the legislation. I repeat that all the professional bodies that I have met in the outside world are extremely concerned. It is the outside world that has to make the legislation work once it is in place. It needs a lot more reassurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 125 to 127 not moved.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 8.38 p.m.
  Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended front 7.38 to 8.38 p.m.]
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 128:
  Page 25, line 17, at end insert—
  "( ) The authority shall carry out an environmental assessment under Directive 2001/42/EC of proposed development consisting of projects listed in Annexes I and II to Directive 85/337/EC where they are likely to have significant effects on the environment prior to issuing a statement of development principles."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the strategic environment assessment directive, which comes into force in July 2004, requires environmental assessment to be carried out of plans and programmes, including those which,
  "set the framework for future development consent of projects".
  The Government accept that the directive applies to the RSS and local development plans. They have not addressed whether it applies to statements of development principles. The consultation on secondary legislation for statements of development principles does not mention the issue, and the Government's Strategic Environment Assessment Directive: Guidance for Planning Authorities, published in 2003, does not mention the plans.
  There are two directives on environmental assessment. The first is the strategic environmental assessment directive—2001/42/EC. The second is the environmental impact assessment directive—85/337/ EC—which was amended in 1997. The environmental impact assessment directive requires an EIA of "development consents" which entitle a developer to proceed with a project. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said of statements of development principles and that directive:
  "An environmental impact assessment will not be required on an application for a statement of development principles. because such a statement is not a development consent".—[Official Report, 29/1/04; col. 354.]
  We agree that a statement of development principles is not a development consent, so the EIA directive would not apply on that basis. However, the Minister's comment did not address whether the strategic environmental assessment directive would apply.
  The Government need to answer on the issue. If strategic environment assessment applies, the SoDP process will be much slower and far more expensive and complicated than appears in the Bill.
  There will need to be a screening process to decide whether a particular request for an SoDP needs an environment assessment. If it does, an environmental report has to be prepared, consulted upon and made available to the public.
  An environmental report will include: an out line of the contents of the plan; relevant aspects of the current state of the environment; details of the environmental

  515
  characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected; existing environmental problems; environmental protection objectives; likely significant effects on biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage, architecture, archaeology, landscape and the inter-relationship between those factors. Mitigation measures and alternatives will have to be considered.
  Finally, there would be a non-technical summary. Trans-boundary implications would have to be addressed. A reasoned decision has to be given and published. The requirements of the directive are onerous but they do not replace any requirement for environmental impact assessment when a planning application is made.
  There is some sense in applying the directive—how can a local authority decide on the principle of a development without knowing what the environmental effects will be? However, it will make SoDPs harder to obtain. Some of the reasoning for SoDPs has been to avoid problems which have arisen in environmental impact assessments of outline planning applications. The Government may find themselves requiring two environmental assessments rather than one. The legal advice which we have been given from those with expertise in environmental impact assessment is that the strategic environmental assessment directive will apply to SoDPs. The amendment requires strategic environmental assessments of those projects falling within Article 3 of the directive. Ultimately the answer is more important than the wording of the amendment, as the directive has to be complied with in any event.
  We have to get this right, as it is complicated. First, any SoDP regime must be lawful. Secondly, a need for environmental assessment is a powerful argument that SoDPs will not be used because of the time, cost and practical difficulties involved. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I can give a fairly short and succinct answer to assist the debate. Amendment No. 128 would require the local planning authority to carry out an environmental assessment of any proposed development consisting of projects listed in Annexes 1 and 2 of directive 85/337/EC, which could have significant effects on the environment prior to issuing a statement of development principles. The amendment does not work, because it refers to an environmental assessment under directive 2001/42/EC, which is the directive that requires environmental assessment of,
  "plans and programmes which set the framework for future development consent of projects".
  It does not apply to development consents for projects, which is covered by the environmental assessment directive and does not apply to statements of development principles, because they are not development consents. We would see no reason in any event to introduce new and unnecessary requirements. All the costs of carrying out such an assessment shall be placed on the local planning authority. Moreover, the environmental impact assessment directive places
  516
  the responsibility for providing information for the environmental impact assessment with the developer. I hope that those points clarify the situation, in case the noble Lord wishes to come back at a later stage.
  8.45 p.m.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, one needs to read and analyse what the Minister has said, because it concerns a directive. The advice that I have been given is that it is not as simple as the Minister says. We need to analyse his response and look at it again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
  8.45 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 129A:
  Page 26, line 5, after "Part" insert "or paragraph 8 of Schedule 1"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not detain the House too long in moving the amendment. The amendment will enable a development order to provide that a parish council that wishes to be notified of a request for an SoDP made in its area will be able to notify the relevant local planning authority that it should be notified of such requests. We have stated that the publicity and consultation procedures for this should mirror those for planning applications.
  The amendment will ensure that the provisions concerning the involvement of a parish council will achieve that. Parish councils can currently notify the relevant planning authority that they wish to be notified of planning applications in their area. The amendment would ensure that parishes would be made aware of proposed developments, if they want to be, and it will provide them with the opportunity to comment at an early stage. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
  Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 130A:
  After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
  "DEVELOPMENT ORDERS: EXTERNAL LIGHTING
  (1) Within two years of the commencement of section 40. the appropriate authority shall make regulations for restricting or regulating the use of external lighting so far as appears to the authority to be expedient in the interests of amenity or public safety.
  (2) The appropriate authority is—

  (a) the Secretary of State in relation to England;

  (b) the National Assembly for Wales in relation to Wales."

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 130A. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that lighting is brought under planning control through provisions in the Bill for enabling regulations. At an earlier stage we discussed the problems of light pollution and its damaging effect on the environment. We discussed the problems of viewing the stars in the night sky, and some of us recognised that rural areas that suffer from light

  517
  pollution feel much more like towns. Badly angled light beams can cause light trespass, and this not only causes problems for residents next door to such lights, but it can be harmful to wildlife. Some people would say that we waste rather a lot of energy on unnecessary lighting as well.
  The situation at present is that artificial light is not classed as development. Regardless of the intrusiveness of the light beams, if the fixture does not significantly alter the appearance of a building, if it is not a free standing structure, the light cannot be classed as development and is not subject to planning controls. Similarly, light is not specifically listed as a statutory nuisance. While it is possible to use statutory nuisance provisions to control light pollution, there is a lot of confusion about whether and how light pollution can be classed as a statutory nuisance. As a result, many local authorities and environmental health officers are reluctant to take action.
  The problem of light pollution was recognised by the Science and Technology Committee in another place. The report, Light Pollution and Astronomy, was produced by the Committee in 2003. It made some recommendations for action to Government. The main recommendations were that making obtrusive light a statutory nuisance would mean that local council environmental health officers could take legal action against serious "bad neighbour" light polluters.
  Another recommendation was new and effective planning guidance on light pollution for local planners, in order for them to draw up local planning policies to tackle light pollution and to refuse planning permission for new developments with bad lighting schemes. Better government guidance for local councils in their role as highways authorities was also suggested, so that they install better-directed, more efficient street and road lighting as they deal with the massive backlog of old and dilapidated equipment. We have made better progress on street lighting than we have on other aspects.
  The Government took few immediate measures following the committee's report. However, they have stated they believe that local authorities should include policies on external lighting in their development plans. The Government also have a commitment to issuing planning policy to local planning authorities on light pollution and writing model planning conditions to minimise the adverse effect of outdoor lighting. The Government have also considered making serious light pollution a statutory nuisance, and many people who are concerned about it would welcome the action. However, nothing is happening quickly.
  An amendment was tabled to the Bill in another place, and the Government were not up front about it. The Minister, Yvette Cooper, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, said that,
  "any legislation would have to be practically enforceable. That would require the ability to make assessments that are sufficiently robust and clear to survive arguments in the courts where the cases may end up".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 21/10/03; col. 255.]
  That is precisely what people will be asking for, and I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic.
  When we discussed the matter at the previous stage, the Minister expressed sympathy but he was not particularly forthcoming. Many people believe—I am grateful to the CPRE for much of the briefing—that there is scope to use the planning system to control light pollution more effectively and to make it more certain. Many of the issues I have raised today are ones with which people have tried to grapple, and this is another where they come up against legislation giving them insufficient support.
  The amendment. proposes introducing statutory enabling provisions and uses the model of the advertisement clause in the principal Act—the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I hope that the Minister will look on it favourably, or at least come forward with something else. The advantages of my proposals are that they would provide a self-contained code through regulations for the control of lighting and they would not depend on the lighting requiring planning permission or constituting a nuisance. The nature of lighting requiring specific consent would be defined in the regulations, and enforcement will therefore be much easier. If consent were granted, it could be made subject to conditions.
  There is a precedent for this approach; the amendment is based on the regime applicable to outdoor advertisements. I hope that the Minister will be a little more forthcoming than he was when we last discussed the issue. I beg to move.
  Lord Bridges: My Lords, I introduced a similar amendment in Committee and I was encouraged by the wide variety of Members who chose to speak to it and to support it. It was encouraging to hear the Minister say in reply that he believed it would be possible to introduce an annex to PPS23, which would give local authorities some power of control. I hope that today the Government Front Bench will be able to give us further information about their plans.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right that the matter was raised in Committee, but I think that I was most forthcoming on the issue recently in response to a Question on the issue of light pollution four or five weeks ago. I remember waving in the House the department's already existing publication on guidance, no details or references to which I have here tonight. In seven minutes at Question Time, with the Questions and Answers, I managed to get quite a lot of good information on to the record, because one is much more disciplined at Question Time.
  When a similar amendment was proposed in Committee, we had a great deal of sympathy with the intention of the amendment—which remains the case. We said that we agreed that excessive, poorly designed. badly aimed lighting can have significant adverse effects on people, wildlife, the amenity and those who look at the sky. But we should remember that good, well designed lighting is an effective way to reduce road accidents, reduce crime and the fear of crime, and enhance community safety; it has a very important role

  519
  to play in creating good conditions. We must strike a balance between the benefits of lighting and the potential adverse impacts.
  New legislation could have significant implications both for those who wish to put up exterior lighting and for local planning authorities who would have to deal with the additional applications. It would be difficult to design a feasible means of assessing external light for statutory planning control purposes. The legislation must be enforceable and practical—that would be a key part of the problem. If we are to have an enforcement regime, somebody has to be able to measure and make an assessment that will stand up in court.
  Bad lighting practice—and there is a lot of it about—is best dealt with by raising public awareness, providing policy advice and guidance, and by more effective use of the existing planning powers, such as the development plan policies on external lighting and the use of planning conditions to mitigate the adverse effects of external lighting.
  As was said, the Science and Technology Select Committee in the other place considered the issue and produced its report on light pollution and astronomy on 6 October last year. It did not recommend the introduction of new planning legislation. It recommended that obtrusive light be made a statutory nuisance. I understand that at present Defra is considering that recommendation as an option; it is that government department's responsibility.
  The committee also recommended the introduction of new planning policy guidance on light pollution, and we have said that we will act on that recommendation. We will introduce—as I said in Committee and at Question Time—an annexe to Planning Policy Statement 23, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, which deals with planning and pollution control. We will produce an annexe specifically on light pollution. We will send clear signals to local planning authorities that they should take the issue of light pollution as seriously as they do other types of pollution when considering planning applications. The annexe will have the same status as the parent planning policy statement and will be a material consideration in the preparation of regional spatial strategies and local development documents, and in the consideration of planning applications. So there would be no get-out; it would be a material consideration in terms of whatever was proposed.
  Given the potentially significant implications that new legislation would have on local planning authorities, which will have to deal with the additional applications and proposed new policy guidance, we hope that the matter will not be pursued.
  As I remember waving around that day, we have already produced guidance—for example, on lighting in the countryside—towards good practice, which provides practical advice to local authorities, developers and the public on what can be done to lessen the adverse effects of external lighting. This
  520
  guidance is freely available and is on the ODPM website, whose address I think I gave out twice at Question Time.
  We are positive about this issue, which has been looked at by an all-party committee in Parliament and by those outside—I remember seeing the maps that were produced, and, I think, photographs or maps of light pollution produced by CPRE in its very useful document circulated in the autumn of last year to coincide with the Select Committee hearings.
  We are positive about it, and, boringly repetitive though it may be to say it, we do not think that it is right for the Bill. We will act to bring in the bad practice of light pollution—covering regional spatial strategies, development plans and particular planning applications—in such a way that it will have to be taken account of, as it will be a material consideration. I regret to say that I do not have a date for that. I hope that I will have something more to report at Third Reading, although I also hope that we will not raise every issue again then, because we will not get the job done.
  As for the timing for the proposed annex to Policy Planning Statement 23, there is no date in my notes. We will work with stakeholders to consider what might be included in the annex, which will then be subject to wider consultation. Planning Policy Statement 23 is due to be published this spring, and the annex will follow it, once the work with stakeholders and the consultation are complete. That sounds like the summer before the autumn of this year to me.
  9 p.m.
  Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full reply. I agree with him that it is about striking the right balance as regards the need to make sure that places are sufficiently lit to protect people from crime and make areas safe. However, there have been problems.
  I thought that the amendment, which was recommended to me by the Campaign to Protect Rural England, was rather imaginative and dealt with the question of advertisements. I thought that it was a good way of doing that, and I did not see that it would be particularly onerous. It would make things clear. However, I welcome the fact that the Government are giving the matter serious consideration and will bring out an annex.
  One gets worried about yet another consultation. Later on in this stage, I may have criticisms to make on some of the consultations. I hope that it will not take too long and that the Government will listen.
  People are concerned that there should be something in place that enables local authorities to give the matter the priority that it needs and take the action that they want to take. I shall read carefully what the Minister said, but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 43 [Applications jar planning permission and certain consorts]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 130B:
  Page 26, line 16. after "permission" insert "(whether for full or outline permission)"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 130B is grouped with Amendments Nos. 131 and 134, to which my noble friend Lady Maddock has attached her name. They are to be introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, or, perhaps, by my noble friend—there is some negotiation going on behind me. They are perhaps the more important amendments in the group. My amendment is a small one.
  We have already talked today about the problems with statements of development principle and the Government's concern to see that outline applications contain more detail than is currently required. I said that I supported that, and I made a note to table Amendment No. 130B some time ago, in order to show that we did not oppose everything that the Government were doing. It was intended to be helpful, and I had not appreciated that we would probably cover the point in an earlier debate. I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 131 and 134. We have had the debate about the importance of design, and I shall not repeat the arguments. The amendments would ensure that design elements were an important part of consideration for outline planning permission. Local authorities would have the power to demand that people considered the design principles.
  There is not a lot more to say, as we have had the debate. I hope that, when the Minister tables the promised amendments about the importance of design in the planning process, as set out in the Bill, he will ensure that they deal with all the stages. We have rehearsed the arguments about how important it is, but the earlier people start considering the design of buildings, the better chance we will have of ensuring that the final product is satisfactory. It sends a very powerful message that this is not something tacked on at the end, when the local authority complains about the standard of design in a planning application, but that it starts at the very first stage. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that he will have that in mind when he brings forward his proposals at Third Reading.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, we have had this debate. We have also heard some very helpful noises from the Minister and I understand that this is something we shall get at Third Reading. It is always very difficult to have to wait until Third Reading because one never knows quite what one will get. One has to hold one's breath and hope that it will turn out right, that one will be able to accept it and that it will be what is wanted.
  I am optimistic. These amendments are about honesty; they are about making sure that developers are up-front about what they want to do and about the impact that it will have on local communities. What
  522
  developers say at outline stage should be carried through in the final design and any differences should be made absolutely clear so that people's attention can be drawn to them so that they can comment on them and deal with them as they wish. I am hoping for an encouraging holding reply from the Minister on these amendments.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, have said, we have debated this subject. There is not a great deal more that I can add.
  These amendments are interesting because they get down to the detail of how in practice design might work as part of the planning process. Reflecting on my local government experience, it is how the framework is set and what is implied by having a statement of design principles submitted with outline planning applications that creates the opportunity for discussion, debate, refinement and further thought about what is to be achieved through a particular development, the benefits that might accrue to the community and how it might improve the quality of civic space. These are interesting amendments for that reason.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said, proposals will be brought back at Third Reading that will include design on the face of the Bill. There has been a lot of consultation. My speaking note tells me that there have been some very valuable discussions on these issues with the British Property Federation, the House Builders Federation and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors which welcomed the statement that was made about design on 15 December.
  I hope that the Government can match the aspirations that have been discussed in your Lordships' House. It is certainly our intention to move in that direction. Having heard that, I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will not move the amendments that they have tabled at this stage and will await Third Reading.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am not sure that there was any response to Amendment No. 130B. Perhaps the Minister thought that I was not asking for one, but I hate to deprive him of the opportunity of getting something on the record on the part of the Government.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the prompt. Amendment No. 130B suggests that applications for planning permission cover both outline and full applications. Our response is that if we were to decide to retain outline planning permission—and, as the noble Baroness will know, there is an internal discussion going on about that issue—this amendment would, so far as we are concerned, be unnecessary. The reason for this is that the term "planning permission" covers both outline and full permission. I am sure that the noble Baroness understands that. For that reason, and because there are continuing discussions on the issue, it is not an amendment to which we are attracted. I am

  523
  sorry that that is the case, and I know that it will not make the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, overly happy, but I am sure that she will understand why it is the case.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, on the contrary, I am much happier that there is substantive work going on than I would be by winning a small Brownie point tonight.
  I do not detect any wish to continue the debate about design principles at this stage, as dealt with in this amendment and the others in the group. As the noble Lord said, we welcome the fact that the matter is being taken forward and we are beginning to address some of the detail of how that might happen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 132:
  Page 26, line 25, leave out "they think" and insert "are"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think that we need delay the House for too long on Amendments Nos. 132 and 133.
  When I raised the matter in Committee, it was heartening to hear the Minister defend local authority discretion. However, I am still keen to know whether it is possible, under the current language of Clause 43, for two local planning authorities that share a border to demand that entirely different particulars be included in a planning application for the same development.
  Of course, as everyone knows, we defend local autonomy and discretion, so we will not press the amendment today. The language as it stands might be welcome to us. I seek clarification about the issue of the local planning authorities' freedom to decide what is necessary for inclusion in planning applications. How does this freedom relate to development orders that specify what applications should contain? Do the Government believe that the difference between two authorities on what must be included on applications could be a source of delay in the delivery of a cross-border project? I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, one way of answering the noble Lord is this: if you genuinely believe in the local planning authority's discretion, then, if there is a cross-border project, each authority must be left to deal with its own part of the project. You cannot, on the one hand, give them maximum discretion to do it in their own way, and, on the other, seek to constrain them because there happens to be a cross-border project. I do not know of many examples.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, is the Minister going to condone a road that is three-lane, two-lane, one-lane, three-lane, two-lane, one-lane as it goes through various authorities?
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, life is not like that. Planning authorities are not stupid. It is true that they may be open to criticism. I do not have many examples—though roads are obviously a good example—but I can think of other projects.
  For example, there is a former industrial site in one of the growth areas in Northamptonshire which is now another kind of enterprise altogether. It is in one of my photographs in the exhibition that opened today at Westminster Hall. I did not know that the boundary of two local authorities went through the site. When the steelworks was demolished and proposals were produced for the motor speedway at Rockingham, one authority had one policy on helicopter landings and the other one had a different policy. But they came to an agreement, and the development went ahead. They were sensible about it and did it their way. I asked how the local authority boundary had ended up going through the middle of a steelworks, but I understand that that was an accident of history. I cannot be more precise than that.
  However, we genuinely believe that local authorities must be allowed to exercise their judgment in deciding what information additional to that provided by the prescribed standard application they need in order to make the assessment. I realise that the amendments are probing, but their effect would be to remove the local authority's discretion.
  The noble Lord has not given me any examples of cross-border developments other than that of roads in which there has not been a satisfactory outcome to a problem. So that is best left to the local authority. It is true that introducing a standard planning application form to be used by all local authorities in England is a change, but it provides the essential information that local authorities will need to determine the application.
  As an example, let us consider what happens if a developer makes an application to neighbouring authorities for developments that are essentially the same. It could do so by providing the same level of information on the same form. It is true that each authority, because their areas will be different, may come back to ask for a little hit of extra, different information relevant to its site. It is up to them if they want to do that. If they want information specific to the area, they must have discretion to demand it. However, in the absence of any examples of where satisfactory outcomes have not been achieved, I rest my case.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. As I said initially, it is a probing amendment. We wanted the Government to clarify their position; we shall obviously read and think about his response, but this is not one of the most important issues of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 not moved.]
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 135:
  After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
  "Designs and masterplans
  In the principal Act after section 54A (status of development plans) there is inserted the following new section—
  "54B MERIT OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT
  In determining any application for planning permission for development, special regard is to be had to the merit of any design, masterplan or permitted drawings which have been submitted in connection with any existing permission for development on the application site.""
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment picks up a point that was discussed briefly in Committee but was not the subject of a separate amendment. I have attempted to devise an amendment to deal with the matter. The principal problem arises where a planning application is submitted and agreed with a fine design from, for example, the Richard Rogers Partnership but, when it comes to be built, it is the subject of a second planning permission with no architect at all—just something put together by the builders. The whole project may have been greatly degraded, but the planning authority feels that, as it has granted permission for a development consisting of that number of houses and, apart from their design, the houses will be pretty much the same, it has no leg to stand on in arguing with the change of design.
  I hope that that will be ironed out under the proposals that we are to consider on Third Reading. It is not an everyday abuse, but it is sufficiently common to have been given the name within the profession of "trophy architecture". So it is an abuse that has clearly gained some currency. I hope that, when we read the Government's proposals, that will be dealt with along with the other difficulties that face authorities that want to ensure good design in their areas. I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment. It highlights an issue that my noble friend Lord Greaves mentioned in Committee. He gave us a graphic description of what had happened in a town in Lancashire where the local authority had gone to a lot of trouble to achieve a really good design. For whatever reason, that then fell out of the equation and the application was taken up by someone else and something entirely unsatisfactory—nothing like the original proposal—was built. So the issue is important.
  When the Minister presents his proposals on Third Reading for writing design principles into the Bill, I hope that they will cover all the different stages. The Government have been positive in what they have said, but I did not receive a clear answer in response to my previous amendment when I asked whether they will address that at every stage. The stage that we are discussing is especially important, as the example cited by my noble friend Lord Greaves demonstrated and as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, just said.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have been thinking about this issue recently as we faced problems in my borough. Let us suppose that designs are put forward
  526
  for planning permission by one developer and that that developer has an architect; however, the developer decides not to proceed with the same planning application, and another developer decides to take it on. The question is whether those plans and designs are transferable to the new developer, and whether the new developer is bound by the design of an architect whom he might otherwise not have employed.
  My view is that one ought to do exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, which is, "That's the plan; that's the design; you build it". But when it passes to another developer, I am not sure what powers there are to enforce that. We might be able to put that into the Bill. But I am still not certain that we could force a developer to take up the plans of another architect to develop the scheme.
  I am not disagreeing with that; I think that it is very meritorious and extremely sensible. I am merely looking at the practical implications of how one can do it.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I do not know whether it would be possible to condition the original application, but even if it were, would it be proper to do so? I think that the noble Baroness alluded to that. Perhaps the discussion takes us back to the need for good design and a requirement for good design principles to be followed, which should be written in at the earliest possible stage. If that were written in at the start, there would be something objective so that if a switch took place, there would be a principle to be complied with. That would help local authorities which may not have pinned down the details of the first application to which they can stick if someone comes along with a substitute.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Lucas on this hugely important point. It is one of the tragedies of this country that for several decades of the latter part of the previous century some appalling developments and building took place. One of the aspects on which I want to focus—although I am not sure whether my noble friend's amendment covers it—is the importance of the material to be used, which is as important as the actual design. It will be unfortunate if a splendid scheme that has been submitted by a distinguished and caring architect for a patron who wishes to put up something of real quality falls and lapses, and a subsequent developer does not have anything like the same motivation, but tries to piggy-back on that earlier application to a much lower standard of design and materials. I hope that the Bill will ensure that increasing attention will be paid to design and materials for both private and public buildings—non-residential office buildings, and so on.
  We have discussed the issue already, but the amendment brings it out. Again, one cannot resist referring to the United States, where I travel every year, particularly the downtown areas of American cities. In general, the quality of office buildings especially is streets ahead of what we have in this country, although not in every case. My noble friend is on to something really important. The Bill should be

  527
  used to ensure that we do not have the kind of shoddy buildings that were put up in the latter part of the previous century.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, raised a very valid point. From looking at major developments in my home city, it seems that we often accept designs that we would not consider in a better world. But because of the framework within which planning considerations take place, it is difficult to establish benchmarks and principles, and so forth.
  Time and again, the issue that arose was that there was a very useful, good, virgin site within the confines of' the city centre. Because of the financial atmosphere in which the development was proposed a mega-plan would be put forward, which the developer would find it was unable to carry through; for example, money did not stack up and things could not be made to happen. The proposed development would lapse. Some years later another grand set of proposals would come forward, which may or may not proceed because of the financial package that was in place. At the same time, in the back of one's mind, one still had the excellence or merits of an earlier application; that is, what it had been trying to achieve and the nature of the buildings that were on offer.
  This amendment is interesting. It takes us back to the detail of the whole design issue. But I do not think that this is the way to deal with it. The wording suggests that we should have,
  "special regard … to the merit of any design".
  That is fine, but I am not quite sure what it means as regards this legislation. Obviously, it is an important issue, but it would be better placed in the background guidance, information, framework and criteria used to tease out design issues. Although the amendment reconfigures part of our earlier important debate, I am not sure that it takes us any closer to what noble Lords seek today.
  The department looking at these issues is thinking about perhaps the full endorsement of the CABE guidance that protects design quality in the planning system as a companion guide to PPS1; or perhaps to revise some of the existing good practice guidance in PPG1 to ensure that it continues to promote best practice; and to provide further advice on the methods and tools available to ensure good quality design; for example, model conditions.
  I want to reassure noble Lords that we are taking these issues very seriously. The Government want to tackle the important issues of urban design. We are thinking somewhat imaginatively in careful consultation with those who know how we can best achieve that. I applaud the efforts made by noble Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, planning Bills do not come along too often. This is an opportunity to get to grips with these important design issues. We all want to lever up design standards and provide the right kind of framework within which imaginative design can flourish and be encouraged.
  528
  I do not know whether that takes us much further forward with Amendment No. 135, which is in any sense slightly flawed and not quite in the right place and of the right design. However, I wanted to suggest that we are mindful of the comments and observations that lie behind it.
  9.30 p.m.
  Baroness Maddock: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he recognise that the problem we are trying to address is that if a good quality design is approved at one stage of the process it is not possible for it to go backwards at another stage? That is what we have identified as part of the problem. I was not sure from his remarks whether he recognised how we would deal with it.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, again before the Minister sits down—this is part of the same issue—does he accept that if a good application is approved and then later another applicant comes along with something similar that is not good quality, the local planning authority needs to have the tools to say no without fear of being taken to appeal on the basis that the first one, which is close, has been approved? That is a practical danger.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I see that. Perhaps my comments did not reflect enough on the issue. I recognise that it is a problem. We have all been in and understand local government. We have all come across such examples: how do we tackle them? Obviously there have to be clear design policies within the local planning framework, which will be distilled from the national framework, and there has to be an effective use of planning conditions. Those are the building blocks of the issue.
  I want to consider the matter further. We may need to provide a note identifying how we see it working in practice, because I recognise the issue. Sometimes councillors on planning committees would like to say, "We'd like to have the design we had last time round: can we have it now with this developer?" However, the real world does not work like that. As we know, the financial framework that surrounds development moves on all the time. There are new ways of generating revenue out of development and communities want new things; and there are new objectives for any given site, particularly if it is well placed and can be used for different purposes—leisure, retail, housing and so on—depending on the money available for it. We have to recognise that there are some constraints but not lose sight of the overall push to improve the quality of design with a particular development proposal or set of proposals.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put it well in her interjection. The core of the issue is to ensure that a local planning authority faced with a second application for a site where it has already granted permission feels able to say, "No: the reason we gave that application permission is that the design

  529
  was good. Yours may have the same number of houses with the same number of rooms and a similar layout, but the design is not good for other reasons and that is why we arc rejecting it," and to be confident that that is a valid reason. Such a provision would enable authorities to look hack to an earlier application by another developer and say, "No, you can't read over from one to the other because you haven't got the design right". I can see that the Front Bench opposite understands and I am delighted.
  Nothing in what we are trying to do will give us universal good design. The best architects can design buildings that we find horrible or difficult to get on with. I shudder every time I cross Vauxhall bridge going south: other people think that it is wonderful.
  We cannot achieve perfection by laying down rules. I hope, however, that we achieve a system where someone could build another building as wonderful and eccentric as the Royal Pavilion in Brighton. It must have seemed difficult at the time. Indeed, I am even starting to like the British Library; there are some nice things about it now that one is familiar with it. Thoughts and tastes move on and early judgments can be wrong.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I may interject with a point that might amuse the noble Lord. In the 1920s there was a move on the part of the then Brighton town council to have the Royal Pavilion demolished. They probably thought it was vulgar, but that was the taste at the time.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am glad they missed that one. This is not about perfection, but ensuring that the worst is dealt with, that the real horrors are prevented. One is just being put up opposite where I am. It is so obviously had and I am sure that everyone knows exactly what I am talking about. I look forward to Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 136:
  After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
  "ACCESS STATEMENTS
  (1) In the principal Act after section 62 (form and content of applications for planning permission) there is inserted the following section—
  "62A ACCESS STATEMENTS
  (1) An application for planning permission for development of a prescribed class or size shall not be entertained by the local planning authority unless it is accompanied by an access statement.
  (2) An "access statement" is a statement which demonstrates that the applicant has fully considered how reasonable access and ease of use for people, regardless of disability, age or gender, will be provided in the context of the works in question.
  (3) Any access statement—

  (a) shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act; and

  (b) shall include such particulars and be verified by such evidence as may be required by the regulations or by directions given by the local planning authority under them."

  (2) In the listed buildings Act 1990 after section 11 (certificates as to applicant's status etc.) there is inserted the following section—
  "11A ACCESS STATEMENTS
  (1) An application for listed building consent which materially affects access to or around the building for people shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by an access statement.
  (2) An "access statement" is a statement which demonstrates that the applicant has fully considered how reasonable access and ease of use for people, regardless of disability, age or gender, will be provided in the context of the works in question.
  (3) Any access statement—

  (a) shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act; and

  (b) shall include such particulars and be verified by such evidence as may be required by the regulations or by directions given by the local planning authority under them."

  (3) In the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (c. 46) after section 2 (control of works affecting scheduled monuments) there is inserted the following section—
  "2A ACCESS STATEMENTS
  (1) An application for scheduled monument consent which materially affects access to or around the monument for people shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by an access statement.
  (2) An "access statement" is a statement which demonstrates that the applicant has fully considered how reasonable access and ease of use for people, regardless of disability, age or gender, will be provided in the context of the works in question.
  (3) Any access statement—

  (a) shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act; and

  (b) shall include such particulars and be verified by such evidence as may be required by the regulations.""

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving. Amendment No. 136 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 137 and 149. I am not sure about giving the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, ideas about becoming a Prince Regent hut, if he builds another Royal Pavilion, I hope that it will have jolly good access arrangements, because that is the concern of these amendments.
  The first amendment in the group concerns access statements to accompany planning applications. We all agree that disabled access is currently addressed much too late in the process. At present, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 simply requires that a developer's attention is drawn to the issue on his being granted planning permission and later at the stage of building control. We have the new good practice guidance from the ODPM encouraging authorities on their part to encourage applicants to submit access statements with their applications. The guidance argues that such statements are key to getting developers to take seriously the issue of inclusive design at the earliest stages. It suggests that if an access statement is not submitted, the local planning authority could reject the registration of the application, with the comment that this would overcome the matter delaying the eight-week period which applies.
  Four years ago, the Disability Rights Task Force recommended revisiting, reviewing and revising Section 76 of the 1990 Act when a suitable legislative

  531
  opportunity arose. I recall saying at the previous stage that if this is not the opportunity, what is. Further, as has been mentioned more than once in this Chamber, action was pledged in the Government's 2001 manifesto.
  This provision would require the developer to outline the process undertaken to establish the access provisions within the design and would also apply where a building was undergoing a change of use. The exact form of the statement would depend on the size, nature and complexity of the scheme. It could also specify how the building should be managed and operated to ensure that it continues to be exclusive—I am sorry, I meant to say "inclusive"; I hope that that was not a Freudian slip. Specifying information early would be in the interests of the developer so as to avoid later delays and costs.
  The Government have said that they will consult on whether access statements should be a required document and have used the term in this connection in appropriate circumstances. At the previous stage, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, queried whether such a provision should apply generally. I suggested to the Disability Rights Commission—which has provided me with considerable assistance, not least by giving me the appropriate nudge to table these amendments again—that wording such as,
  "in the context of the works in question",
  might meet the point made by the noble Lord. I believe that he referred to a window in a listed building.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bassam said in Committee that he would,
  "press officials for a tighter timetable".—[Official Report, 2/2/04; col. 456.]
  I hope that tonight he can be much clearer about the timetable and give us a statement that applications without an access statement will not be entertained. It would be useful to know more about Government thinking as to what applications they would wish to exempt. Perhaps he can also help the House as to the application of access statements in the case of listed buildings and scheduled monuments when the impact on access to and around the building and monument is in issue.
  Amendment No. 137 seeks to place a new duty on authorities to have due regard to the need to ensure that reasonable provision is made so that buildings and their approaches are accessible to and usable by people regardless of disability, age or gender. The amendment is intended to ensure that all planning officers, committees and inspectors properly scrutinise planning applications against relevant access standards and provisions so that potential design barriers can be nipped in the bud. Again it is a matter of getting to the issue early.
  We think that it would make it more likely that applications that had not properly addressed access would be rejected or would have specific conditions attached to them. This would, we think, provide for greater consistency across different planning authorities—I am told that they are something of a
  532
  patchwork at the moment. It is intended also to ensure that a better balance is found between access, ability and conservation principles.
  We are aware of the issue around listed building consent. Preserving the character of a listed building may appear to conflict with proposals to widen a door or make other access improvements. Under current legislation disability access is a much lesser consideration than preserving the building character, even though with a little imagination and hard work in many cases a solution could take both into account. The Minister said in Committee that an amendment similar to this was not necessary. I think it is.
  Finally, there is the repeal of Section 76. As I have said, its repeal was a manifesto commitment. That is important but the underlying issue is more important, which is it that the provision is out-of-date and does not reflect the Government's current policy. The Government have said that they are not revising the section because they want to mainstream disability access through new planning policy statements. The Disability Rights Task Force did not recommend either revision of Section 76 or updating guidance. The Government should do both. I do not know whether it is up to the Opposition to make too much of a point about how the Government deal with the issue; nor do I know how such a decision in respect of a manifesto commitment would be regarded outside, but we can probably read between the lines well enough.
  Revised guidance is not adequate. It will not end the huge variances in the ways in which different local planning authorities address the issue of access to the built environment. The courts do not always leave planning guidance where it starts. We shall no doubt spend time later on Section 106—although perhaps not later tonight—but the guidance there states that local authorities should not seek a contribution unless it is necessary and directly related to the proposed development, and case law broadened the interpretation of the kind of contribution that could be required. That is an example of guidance not staying quite where it started.
  Generally, of course, the courts attach more importance to statutory duties than to guidance, and unless and until there are clear duties in planning law on inclusive environments, too many planning officers and too many inspectors will continue to assume that access is a matter to be left to the building control process; that it is an add-on about which they do not need to bother their heads too much at the stage at which they are involved.
  These are very important issues. I know that the House's heart is in the right place but, as with so much in this area, we must find a mechanism to achieve what we all want. I beg to move.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing those few extra words into Amendment No. 136. I am totally comfortable with the way in which it is expressed. Subject, as always, to guidance from those concerned with drafting

  533
  government legislation, I should like to see it in the Bill. I should like a similar tweak to be given to Amendment No. 137, but perhaps we should first listen to the Minister and come back to that at Third Reading.
  Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I strongly support the three amendments. They are essential for ensuring that access is brought into the beginning of the planning process. I hope that the Minister will give a favourable response.
  Lord Addington: My Lords, if we manage to get the planning process to take forward the issue of access, we shall probably save everyone a great deal of time and money. Probably the only people whom it will affect, I am afraid, are the lawyers, because they will have to ensure that the legislation complies with the new regulations coming in at present. The draft Bill is being discussed. Can the Minister give an assurance that if the Government stay where they are they will not be contradicting the spirit of the Disability Discrimination Act? If they cannot give that assurance, they should look long and hard at this issue.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is a classic example of where a Minister should put his oar into the debate straightaway. I do not wish to prolong the discussion. The case has been made that the access statement should be on the face of the Bill. I shall take these amendments away and come back at Third Reading with something that addresses these concerns.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that answer and for his obvious preparedness for Third Reading—I know that the Government Chief Whip is listening to this—which will be quite a long occasion and certainly a very interesting one.
  Although the Minister said that what is proposed is instantly acceptable, that does not always stop people talking. His reply is obviously welcome, but I hope that he will forgive me for making the point again—it may seem a little trite and obvious—that it is important that the Government's amendments are published in time, not only for those of us who will speak to them, but for stakeholders to be consulted. I have no doubt that the Government are working with them in any event and will continue to do so. Those who have proposed amendments such as those to which I have spoken should be in no doubt that the Government's proposals meet all the points that have been raised. The issues before us have been around for a good while. They are not wholly straightforward. It is important that stakeholders are satisfied with the outcome. I am not trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs on that point. It is merely an issue that should be addressed before Third Reading. In thanking the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
  Clause 45 [Major infrastructure projects]:
  Lord Hanningfleld Lord Hanningfleld moved Amendment No. 138:
  Page 31, line 14, at end insert—
  "( ) Any planning application that the Secretary of State declares is of national or regional importance, as designated through subsection (1) must be subject to an economic impact report.
  ( ) Any planning application for a major infrastructure project based on a site-specific proposal in a national policy statement White Paper shall he considered by an inspector who shall be able to question the need for a specific development."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to an extremely important amendment to the Government's proposals for major infrastructure projects. As I stated in Committee, I am particularly engaged with these issues as the leader of an authority that was severely affected by the Government's proposals for the expansion of airport capacity in the south-east.
  The amendment would ensure that major infrastructure projects are subject to an economic impact report. It excludes site-specific proposals in White Paper national policy statements to prevent them reducing the scope of a public inquiry.
  The two provisions in Amendment No. 138 are crucial to enhancing the Government's proposals for major infrastructure projects. I shall speak to each in turn.
  The first part of the amendment would require the Secretary of State to conduct an economic impact report on any planning matter that he deems to fall within this part of the Bill. Major infrastructure projects, which may cause great damage to the environment, are usually promoted on the basis that they will deliver economic regeneration benefits. Therefore, a robust appraisal of whether demonstrable economic benefits will accrue must take place.
  The examples of the Hastings bypasses and the West Midlands strategic western bypasses, which have been brought to my attention by the CPRE, show that an economic impact report would have greatly helped the decision-making process in each case. In each case, there was a lack of clarity about the assumptions which underlay the bypasses and the proper justification for them. Economic impact reports would avoid those problems by comprehensively probing new infrastructure proposals for their genuine economic implications, both positive and negative. They would provide a firm, realistic and impartial basis for discussion of a project's likely economic consequences.
  Noble Lords may be interested to know that the Government have already accepted the logic of my argument. The Department for Transport is taking forward the recommendation of its standing advisory committee on trunk road assessments that economic impact reports be produced before decisions on new transport infrastructure are taken forward.
  Since that is the case, why would the Government change the rules only for transport infrastructure and only via guidance? The importance of major infrastructure projects to local communities merits including economic impact reports in the Bill.
  We support economic impact reports also because the arguments about the economic impact should be in the public domain at an early stage. It was stated in another place that a statutory economic impact report would be unnecessary, because the economic effects of development would be examined by the inspector. That is in no way acceptable.
  Local people who are affected by major planning proposals will not wait until an inquiry to make their voices heard. They will want to confront the issues head-on. By the time the inquiry takes place, positions will have hardened and there will be little chance of persuading people of the merits of a particular development. That would be fine if one were not too concerned about local community support, but it is wrong. We should make every effort to ensure that local people fully understand the rationale behind planning proposals of that kind.
  Those who are in favour of development would welcome robust arguments being put into the public domain. I would have thought that the Government would seek to reshape local debate in that way.
  The second part of the amendment is equally important. It will enable an inspector to examine the justification of a site-specific proposal in the Government's White Paper. Planning by White Paper is simply unacceptable. Of course we support the use of White Papers to provide a framework for guiding the planner of major infrastructures. However, bypassing the checks and balances in the planning system by making site-specific recommendations is another matter entirely. That is what has happened with Stansted, and Labour Peers will be aware of the legal objections being pursued by various local authorities, including my own.
  Major infrastructure projects rarely enjoy all-round support, but they must have public legitimacy. It is an erosion of democratic decision-making if a White Paper pre-empts the question of whether a specific development is needed. A White Paper consultation certainly does not adhere to the same checks and balances as a planning application.
  In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that during an inquiry the inspector will consider all aspects of the application, including the need for a specific development. However, a little later in the same speech, he said that the inspector should not have to spend inquiry time considering whether the need for a development exists, but should consider instead whether the need identified is outweighed by other factors.
  The difference between those two statements is very important. The first suggests that the principle of major infrastructure projects should be examined and either taken forward or rejected. The second suggests that if a proposal is in the White Paper, the arguments about the principle or need for the development will be deemed to have taken place, but without the legitimacy of the planning process. The emphasis of any inquiry
  536
  would become one of mitigation, with only a prospect of massive environmental and social damage likely to challenge the rubber-stamping logic.
  It is essential that the democratic safeguards in a planning system that help protect the environment and enhance the quality of life in local communities are not bypassed. We think the amendment very important. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment at the previous stage and so convinced myself that we have added our names to it. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has dealt very thoroughly with the issue, and we certainly support the amendment.
  The Minister's response in Committee—I think that other amendments were dealt with at the same time; I am not sure, but we were certainly focusing on the issue—was to give an interesting explanation of how major infrastructure inquiries would work. I was grateful for and interested in that, but I did not think that that explanation really answered the points made today by the noble Lord.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I so agree that the amendment is one of the most important that has been tabled to the Bill. One recognises that one of the objects of the Bill is, from the Government's point of view, where possible, to speed up planning. Where possible, I support that. However, when one comes to major projects of either national or regional importance, it is absolutely crucial that there be full consideration of all the implications of such developments. One simply cannot have a system whereby there can be a fast track for such developments.
  I know how frustrating people find very long public inquiries, whether they be on something like a London airport or, picking one close to where I live, the old Sizewell B inquiry, which was immensely drawn out. In a sense, that was unnecessary, because the inquiry was overloaded all the time with questions about nuclear power, nuclear weapons and the CND people. It was archaic at the time that the arguments were being made, but it lasted for a long time.
  None the less, it is important that we have a system of fundamental appraisal of need. My noble friend quoted from the Minister's slight duality of speech during the last stage, when I think my noble friend said the Minister should not take time querying the need but merely look at the consequences. However, very often, that fundamental question needs to be asked. The premise must be able to be questioned, and that will not happen through the normal planning system.
  The amendment presupposes that the Secretary of State will decide on the instances in which the procedure proposed in the amendment would be used. That is important. In a sense, it is like the call-in procedure. There will obviously be cases where there is no dispute, but if the procedure exists it will have to be used. There will be also be marginal cases where the interest groups will argue for or against the new

  537
  procedure. But the important matter is that the procedure should exist and should be able to question the fundamental issue.
  I remember in my extreme youth when I was almost attracted to Marxism: it was only when one questioned its underlying fundamental assumptions that one understood its fallacies. The Minister might say that that is a far-fetched analogy, but I am trying to show that often when there is major proposal affecting the future of the country one really has to ask some fundamental questions. In the war, when we were fighting for our lives, we had to fast-track military airfields that would often be put up where they would never be set up today. That is a totally different situation. During wartime one could not have had the sort of proposal contained in the amendment, but one can now.
  One of the appalling consequences of bypasses—which, in general, I favour—is that too often the territory between the bypass and the place that is to be bypassed is immediately seen as being suitable for in-filling. That might be undesirable, but is the sort of issue that should arise in the type of assessment covered by the amendment. At least, if it is decided to allow the proposal to go ahead, it should be laid down at that stage that, yes, there should be a by-pass; but that does not mean that the land will then be built upon.
  Before the war, when such planning issues started, the ribbon development was the perfect example—one built a new road and immediately started to build either side of it. Had such assessments—which were launched by Sir Patrick Abercrombie and the founding fathers of protection of the countryside—existed then, many of the horrors would not have happened. So although we are unlikely to resolve the matter tonight, some of us feel strongly about the matter and it is now important, insofar as we are able, to insist that something appears on the face of the Bill.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not wish to belittle in any way the examples that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has just given. He used one example regarding the speed and urgency with which airfields were built during the war. Frankly, with the human rights industry, some proponents of which are members of this House, if we tried that today I can imagine 10,000 arguments that they would be using over why we could not do that. We are in a different situation.
  I also note the forensic checking of my comments in Committee, which were crucial, as all three speeches have made clear. This is a fundamental part of the Bill. In fact, I have been a little surprised—the timing is unfortunate—that we have not had longer to spend on the matter and the amendments have been small in number. Therefore, it is important. Given our current situation, I will stick to the note that I have been provided with. It is safer for everyone all round. Thinking, about what I said in Committee, there is no
  538
  contradiction in the two quotes that were used. I suspect that we will come back to the issue at Third Reading, because it is so important.
  I conceded in Committee that the requirement for an economic impact report to be made in relation to an application that has been designated as a major infrastructure project by the Secretary of State is not necessary in the Bill. We would expect the promoter of a development of the type that we are talking about here to engage at as early a stage as possible with all parties concerned. This would mean that by the time an application for planning permission is made to the relevant local planning authority, the community will have already been actively engaged in the process. An inquiry would then he better able to focus on outstanding issues that have not been resolved at the pre-application stage. Assuming the application is called in. the inspector would consider the economic effects along with all the other aspects of the application as part of the inquiry. These would include environmental and any other impacts. Local people would have that further opportunity to raise their concerns.
  On the second subsection of the amendment, again I reiterate what I said in Committee. Clearly, where there is a national policy statement White Paper, this will help to reduce the argument at the planning inquiry about the need for a specific development on a particular site. I did not say that it would get rid of the argument, but it would reduce the argument at a planning inquiry about the need for a specific development on a particular site. Where need is established by a national policy statement, the inspector should not have to spend inquiry time considering whether a need for the development exists, but should instead consider whether the need identified is outweighed by other factors.
  It will be up to those who are opposed to a development to present their arguments against a specific development, and it is right that they should be free to do so and have that opportunity. This does not rule out the possibility that the inspector will spend some time looking at the need, but this will be in the context of what is said about the need in the national policy statement. I do not know whether that is the case currently, and I do not want to go down the byways—but it may be that that national policy statement in the form of the White Paper has been debated and voted on in this House and the other place. It gives it even greater weight than simply a document that is not debated or approved by both Houses.
  The inspector must ensure that all relevant impacts of the specific development are considered during an inquiry. Therefore, all material considerations will be considered in his report, together with all relevant impacts, such as the economic or environmental impacts of the project. It is a fact—I am not carrying all the details with me—that a considerable amount of time was spent on the Terminal 5 inquiry because there were out of date or unclear policy issues. The recent

  539
  aviation White Paper happens to be a useful example of our stated aim that there should be a clearer government policy statement, which may be supported by clearer regional strategies, as part of our proposals for improving the handling of major infrastructure projects.
  The Government have set out their strategic framework for the development of airport capacity in the UK for the next 30 years. It does not authorise or preclude any particular development, but sets out a policy framework against which the relevant public bodies can plan ahead. That latter point goes a considerable way to meeting the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that we must not have planning by White Paper. We fully accept that we must not have planning by White Paper. The procedure set out in the Bill is a lot better than planning by Parliament, which was the original plan in the planning Green Paper. That would have been an unmitigated disaster. No one has ever come back and said, "We think this is a good idea. We think Parliament should have done all this".
  As I have repeatedly said, it took myself, when I was planning Minister, and the Deputy Prime Minister five minutes of conversation to decide that we did not want to proceed in that way. We must still come up with a solution to how we deal with and process what would be defined as major infrastructure projects. Bearing in mind what had happened over Terminal 5, it would have been irresponsible to leave it to the status quo. That was clearly unacceptable for all concerned; the public, the developers, those who were opposed, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all.
  540
  We have a solution here, which remains open to scrutiny, but it will stand the test of time and scrutiny by both this House and the other place.
  Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. We are in danger of creating new policy because of one bad example; that is, Terminal 5 at Heathrow. We all accept that the Government might want to find speedier processes, but I want to reiterate that there must be a democratic process in doing so. Enormous projects have a fundamental effect not just on the area in which they are located, but in the wider region. There must be proper pre-inquiry and inquiry processes. My amendments would help the Government in taking the matter forward.
  At this late hour, we cannot debate the matter further but we shall certainly return to it at Third Reading. Perhaps the Minister and the Government will think again about it and will go further towards meeting our suggestions. They will help the Government but not go back to the Terminal 5 type of inquiry. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
  Bill reported from the Joint Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; it was ordered that the Bill be printed as amended. (HL Bill 33)
  House adjourned at thirteen minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Energy Bill [H.L.]
  (Tenth Day)
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Good afternoon and welcome to the 10th and, I hope, final day of the consideration of the Energy Bill in Committee. I believe that the Minister has a statement to make. I remind the Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber, we shall adjourn for 10 minutes and resume thereafter.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): I should like to make a brief statement about the issues initially raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, on 20 January on parliamentary privilege. The noble Baroness described her concerns about an "atmosphere of anxiety" among operators within the nuclear industry that they might face adverse consequences from a government department if they were to provide information to noble Lords opposite. The Department for Trade and Industry was mentioned in that context.
  This is a serious matter so let me start by setting out the position with regard to nuclear operators, specifically UKAEA and BNFL as the owners of sites that will become the responsibility of NDA on its inception. These organisations are not staffed by civil servants. They have the right to brief members of any political party either in this House or the other place. It would be improper for a government department to prevent either organisation from briefing Members of Parliament. That, of course, applies to any organisation that has been set up on an independent basis.
  Similarly, questions from any member of this Committee about the important matters under discussion in this Bill—or in any other—must be handled professionally and in accordance with the normal practices of this House.
  With those principles in mind, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the DTI's Permanent Secretary have considered the comments of noble Lords opposite and received reports from senior officials on the department's relationship with the nuclear operators and discussions held over the past few months more specifically about Part 1 of this Bill.
  GC 150
  We are satisfied that there is no attempt by DTI to prevent nuclear operators or other organisations from briefing the opposition, whether that briefing takes the form of answers to specific questions, general information about policy options, or detailed amendments to the Bill. We want, of course, to promote debate rather than constrain it. It is right that there should be a network of contacts at various levels to discuss the general principles governing the Bill, to consider policy options, to test the implications of amendments and, not least, to reach sensible decisions about the way in which business should be handled.
  With that in mind, so that there can be no misunderstanding on either side, the DTI is writing to the UKAEA and to BNFL. The letter will draw their attention to this statement and the principles which I have set out. My statement will also be drawn to the attention of those in DTI working not only on the Energy Bill but all other Bills in this Session. That will ensure that officials can be in no doubt about expectations of them when talking to stakeholders.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am grateful to the Minister for initiating the investigation and for reporting back to the Committee today in the form of the statement. Obviously, we accept what the Minister has said. I do not for one moment suggest that we do not, because we do. However, it is worth noting that four people related their concerns to us. It is right that that fact should be noted; otherwise, I would not have mentioned the matter.
  Lord Whitty: I appreciate the noble Baroness's remarks and note that information. There is a further matter with which I need to deal before we turn to the amendments. At the beginning of the previous Committee Sitting, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, asked whether the Government would make a statement about the chairman of Ofgem, Sir John Mogg's, public intervention on the Government's potential amendment which is designed to give some dispensation from high transmission charges for renewable generators in peripheral areas of Scotland.
  I feel that I should start by agreeing with the Opposition that indeed the language used and reported appeared to be strong and that when an independent regulator criticises the Government in this way, we should think carefully about what has been said. However, it is not unhealthy for an independent regulator to criticise government. Indeed, Ofgem has a long-standing reputation for independence.
  I shall explain the source of the disagreement. As my noble friend Lord Davies said on 12 February. Ofgem and DTI both agree that, in general, we should have a transmission charging methodology that is cost reflective, non-discriminatory and that promotes competition in generation and supply. This will encourage transmission assets to be built and charged for in the most efficient way. In turn, this will minimise the cost to the consumer. Ofgem believes that this sort of charging methodology should apply to all generators, including renewables.

  GC 151
  However, the Government must, of course, take its wider energy objectives into account. While Ofgem plays a part in delivering these objectives as recognised by the breadth of its statutory duties, decisions about trade-offs between environmental and economic objectives are ultimately for government and for Parliament, as we said previously during the Committee. As part of the consultation on transmission charging issued in August, the Government raised the question of whether special dispensation was needed for those renewable generators in peripheral areas that have high renewable potential and that would otherwise be impacted by the highest transmission charges in order to ensure that the Government's renewable targets can be met.
  I should mention that Ofgem made it clear at the time that it objected to the Government's consultation on this issue. After some consideration of the concerns raised by the renewables communities and, indeed, echoed in this Committee stage, we agreed to consider Amendment No. 113ZL, which sought to protect renewables from the high transmission charges. We also specified that the amendment that we are likely to table on Report would aim to take a power to give renewables in a specified area some dispensation to protect them from the impact of high transmission charges.
  In conclusion, and to make matters clear, Ofgem continues to disagree with any intervention on transmission charges, including any dispensation for renewables. The Government believe that they are entitled to consider a dispensation on transmission charges for renewables if that safeguards their wider energy objectives.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for that explanation. At this stage, as we have not seen the amendment, I am prepared to say only that it is clearly not for me to say today what our policy would or would not be. We shall obviously consider the amendment on its merits when it appears before us. I very much hope that that will be in time for us to make a considered opinion and that it will not appear merely a day before the first day of the Report stage.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may add to the comments of my noble friend Lady Miller by thanking the Minister for what has been a very clear statement on this issue. I did not for one moment imagine that Sir John Mogg's statement on 14 February, or whatever the date was, was the first shot in a war that had been going on for some time. The Minister has confirmed that.
  Interestingly, I raised this issue at a conference held last week under the auspices of the Adam Smith Institute, where representatives of a number of interests concerned with both onshore and offshore wind power and other renewables were present. I asked for advice on whether we should believe the Secretary of State or the argument of the chairman of Ofgem. No one was particularly prepared to raise his
  GC 152
  head above the parapet. I do not want to echo the previous statement that was made but, since then, I have received two notes from those who were present but did not take part in the discussion to say that, in the last resort, it may be a matter of indifference because the customer will pay whichever way it goes and it is simply a question of the route through which the customer will pay for the transmission charges. I am not sure that that is entirely right, but we shall clearly need to debate the subject carefully when we come to the Government's amendment on Report.
  My only other point is that I draw a very clear distinction between that issue, which we have yet to reach and which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, foreshadowed in his speech on 12 February, and the issue that we shall reach this afternoon, which is not about transmission but about distribution. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, stated in the Second Reading debate that that was to come. I have no difficulty with the proposals concerning distribution. We may need to consider them in detail, but I believe it is the transmission charges which are the issue. We shall debate that amendment on Report in the light of what the Minister has said to us this afternoon.
  Clause 144 [Appeals to the Competition Commission]:
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 131ZA:
  Page 11, line 19, leave out "whose interests are materially affected by it" and insert "with a sufficient interest in that decision"
  The noble Lord said: I hope that after the statement by the Minister about the differences between the DTI and the regulator, the Minister will find my amendments relatively uncontroversial. I shall begin by speaking to Amendments Nos. 131ZC and 131B, before going on to Amendment No. 131 C and following the rest sequentially, beginning at Amendment No. 131ZA.
  In my submission, the Bill fails to provide an effective right of appeal against Ofgem's decisions under certain industry codes. In our view, that is a very serious deficiency. Industry codes, such as the balancing settlement code, the connection and use of system code and the gas network code, set out the fundamental trading and governance rules for competitive market operations in the gas and electricity industries. Since each gas or electricity licence will contain a condition requiring a licensee to be a party to, and comply with, the provisions in the relevant code, any contravention of the code by the licensee is equivalent to a breach of licence, against which Ofgem can take enforcement proceedings.
  In addition, modification decisions taken under those codes by Ofgem can have a commercial impact on licensees that is at least equivalent to, and sometimes much greater than, changes to the conditions of their operating licences. It must follow that Ofgem's code modification decisions should be exposed to the possibility of challenge by a process that

  GC 153
  is at least as rigorous and thorough as that operated by the Competition Commission to resolve disputed licence modifications. That process, first introduced in the Telecommunications Act 1984, is widely accepted as being both fair and final. However, the Energy Bill does not achieve an analogous process.
  The Bill provides only a statutory codification of some of the existing principles of judicial review. We consider that something closer to a full and genuine right of appeal on the merits is justified. The recent DTI consultation paper on appeals mechanisms, entitled Strengthening the Transparency and Accountability of the Gas and Electricity Industry Code Modification Process, published in April 2003, clearly accepted that judicial review does not provide, and is not equivalent to, a right of appeal on the decisions of Ofgem. The DTI subsequently concluded, in a document entitled Government Response, published in November 2003, that the transparency and accountability of the code modification process would be improved by the creation of a right of appeal.
  In fact, the Energy Bill fails to provide a right of appeal on the merits. Clause 146(4) gives four grounds on which an appeal against an Ofgem decision may be allowed. In my submission, it is wrong for market participants in the energy sector to be deprived of a legal right of appeal to an independent body on the merits of the key decisions taken by Ofgem, when Parliament has recognised that that is required under other legislation that addresses similar issues in other major regulated industries. The gas and electricity industries have had a legitimate expectation that any rights of appeal provided by the Energy Bill would at least be effective rights. That expectation should be met.
  I understand that the officials in the DTI Bill team have claimed that Clauses 144 to 148, while not providing any right of appeal on the merits of a decision, create something more substantive than judicial review. However, we do not find that anywhere in the drafting of those clauses. Nor is it spelt out anywhere in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, or in any DTI consultation paper. Very clear and specific drafting and clear Explanatory Notes would be required to create something that achieves what the DTI is reported as wanting to achieve.
  The very use of the word "appeal" in the Bill is positively misleading. In our view, the appeal provided for under the Bill should be a genuine appeal made on the merits of the case. That could be achieved simply by following the approach taken at Section 192 of the Communications Act 2003, which provides a right of appeal from Ofcom. That Act properly relies on the language of appeal to create a jurisdiction in which the decisions of Ofcom may be reconsidered afresh by the relevant tribunal. That Act requires appellants to specify only whether they allege errors of fact or law in the original decision, or whether they are complaining about how Ofcom has exercised its discretion.
  I now turn to our two amendments on this matter. Following the language of the Communications Act, we propose the deletion of Clause 146(3) and (4) from the Bill and the insertion in Clause 144 of a new subsection which states:
  "In applying to the Competition Commission for permission to bring an appeal under this section, the grounds of appeal must be set out in the application in sufficient detail to indicate—

  (a) to what extent (if any) the appellant contends that the decision appealed against was based on an error of fact or was wrong in law or both; and

  (b) to what extent (if any) the appellant is appealing against the exercise of a discretion by GEMA".

  In line with the approach taken in the communications industry, the amendment would require appellants to specify only whether they allege an error of fact or law in the original decision or whether they are complaining about how the authority has exercised its discretion.
  On the actual language of the Bill, even looking at the Government's purported solution from the narrow grounds of the common law of judicial review, we find that the Government's provisions fall well short of what is required. The list of grounds at Clause 146(4), although derived from judicial review, are an incomplete reflection of the grounds of challenge available in that form of action. Notably, the four categories mentioned do not include the unreasonableness of the decision, even in the limited sense set out in the textbook Wednesbury case, or lack of proportionality. Indeed, the absence of the latter criterion may, in certain circumstances, have the effect of rendering the appeal procedure incompatible with the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998, contrary to the formal statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on the face of the Bill.
  Those limitations are significant because judicial review is a discretionary remedy, which is not generally available if a specific statutory alternative exists. That means that the effects of the Bill are, first, to remove an existing right and, as it does not appear to replace it by something that is at least equivalent, secondly, to substitute an inferior right. Therefore, the overall effect is to derogate from the rights of the industry and of consumers in an area where the Government have accepted that they most need to be enhanced. In that context, we have provided a second, alternative, more modest amendment to Amendments Nos. 131ZC and 131B in the shape of Amendment No. 131C, which inserts the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality.
  We regard this amendment as being less desirable than the first but nevertheless enhancing the rights of any appellant. No appeals mechanism under the Bill as it stands, whether it will be dignified by the description of appeal or otherwise, will be able effectively to strengthen the rights of energy industry participants, including consumers, in relation to regulatory decisions, unless it provides for the appeals body to conclude that, in its opinion, Ofgem's discretion should have been exercised differently in all the circumstances of the case.
  I now turn more briefly, as I am sure your Lordships will be relieved to hear, to deal with the remaining amendments. As far as Amendments Nos. 131ZA and 131ZB are concerned, Clause 144(3) provides that those who have the right to appeal against a decision of the authority must be "materially affected" by the decision. The more usual approach to the question of eligibility in this sort of context is to require that those with a right to appeal must have a "sufficient interest", something which has been elaborated by case law and interpreted generously.
  The focus in the Bill on being materially affected rather than having sufficient interest suggests that the policy objective is to restrict, significantly, the class of persons able to bring an appeal. For example, there is no guarantee under the Bill's approach that all the parties to an industry code would be equally entitled to appeal in relation to a particular decision. This would be, in my view, an erosion of rights which is undesirable as a matter of principle. Accordingly, therefore, the amendments aim to ensure that persons with a sufficient interest in the regulatory decision will be entitled to appeal against it.
  On Amendment No. 131ZD, one of the defining features of those decisions of the authority that are to be subject to appeal is that they must be taken in relation to a document that the Secretary of State has designated, by order, under subsection (2)(b) of Clause 144. Subsection (6) puts a duty on the Secretary of State, before making that order, to consult, first, Ofgem, and, secondly, such other persons as he considers appropriate. This is far too discretionary.
  Given the crucial importance of the designating power, it is only right that the parties to the documents to be designated—in other words, the market participants—should be clearly specified as a category of persons that must be consulted in all cases. The appropriate formula would therefore be that the Secretary of State be required to consult: first, the authority; secondly, the parties to the documents that he is minded to designate under subsection (2)(b); and, thirdly, such other persons as he considers appropriate. In my submission, our amendment would achieve that result.
  As to Amendments Nos. 131ZE and 131ZF, Schedule 22 sets out in meticulous detail the procedure to be followed for appeals raised under Clause 144. Schedule 22(1)(3) requires an appellant to apply to the Competition Commission for permission to bring an appeal within 10 days of the relevant Ofgem decision. This requirement has been set in such a narrow time limit as to be unworkable in practice. In effect, within the space of 10 working days parties must assimilate the Ofgem decision and the reasons for it; take advice on the prospects for successful appeal; obtain a senior-level decision on whether or not to appeal; and compile a full and complete statement of their case.
  The 10-day time limit would be tight, even if that limit related only to the time within which an indication of intent to appeal had to be given. No
  GC 156
  company will lightly commence an appeal and is most unlikely to require board level approval for any such decision. In short, this time limit is wholly unrealistic.
  Furthermore, it contrasts unfavourably with the 20 working days given to the authority later in the schedule to undertake the lesser task of submitting its own observations on the appeal, and it takes no account of the dire consequences of paragraph 7 of the schedule. The effect of paragraph 7 is to remove any certainty that, at a later stage, an appellant will be able to raise issues that were not outlined in his initial request for permission. The result, in practice, is that it will be essential for the request for permission to contain a full and complete statement of all the bases for appeal.
  While it is of course desirable for the appeals process to be undertaken and conducted swiftly, the particular time requirement of paragraph 1(3) is severely overly restrictive and likely to be unfair in its operation and to be prejudicial to appellants. It is inappropriate for the period of time within which an application for permission to appeal must be made to be anything less than 20 working days.
  In addition, it is not good practice to provide that the timetable starts to run from the earliest day on which the decision is published by the authorities. There are many ways to publish a decision, all of which are not guaranteed to draw the matter to the attention of the relevant parties. It is therefore important that the time should not start to run until the decision has been published in such a way that it is likely to be seen by all potential appellants.
  I turn, finally, to Amendment No. 131A. Schedule 22(14)(2) allows the Secretary of State to modify by order any time period specified for the purposes of the appeals procedure set out in the schedule, subject only to the negative resolution procedure.
  The appeals provisions of the Bill undermine and weaken existing legal rights by effectively removing parties access to action by way of judicial review for the reasons I have already explained. It is therefore quite unacceptable for an order-making power, which could be used restrictively, further to limit legal rights to be subject only to negative resolution. At the very least, the power should be subject to a no lesser safeguard than that of the affirmative procedure. It would be even better to subject the power to the special procedure for delegated power that is provided for at Amendment No. 146B, and so Amendment No. 131A is framed accordingly. I beg to move.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I yield to no one in my admiration of my noble friend Lord Kingsland in the masterly way in which he has deployed the several cases for this group of amendments. I rise to my feet only because I tabled Amendment No. 132, to add the additional ground of appeal,
  "that the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable regulator would make it".

  GC 157
  When I drafted that, I think I was already aware that that was the common law and within the normal rules of interpretation for a judicial review or an appeal. However, I have no intention whatever of pressing it because it was tabled before the group of amendments to which my noble friend has spoken. My only question was whether I should have withdrawn it or grouped it. I merely say that I think that my noble friend's amendments are very much preferable. As he has so eloquently said, they spell out much more clearly the grounds on which there could be an appeal.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.1 to 4.11 p.m.]
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I was about to conclude by saying that, as a gloss on what my noble friend Lord Kingsland said, I accept there cannot be an appeal from Ofgem that simply amounts to a rehearing of the case. One has to draw the line, and I thought he drew it with great skill. I entirely endorse what he said which was to provide grounds when matters have manifestly gone wrong, but not simply a second hearing of a case where Ofgem has considered the issues and come to a conclusion. However, I wholly support what my noble friend has said and I hope that Ministers will treat the matter seriously.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: Not only has my noble friend Lord Kingsland spoken with enormous eloquence, as usual, but he is also a man of enormous modesty. I suggested to him that on this occasion, as our shadow Lord Chancellor, he might like to speak from the Front Bench which would indicate that his views are the views of our Front Bench. That will please noble Lords opposite because I can now simply sit down.
  Lord Triesman: I join noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench and those behind them in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for the clarity of the propositions that he has made. I shall not go through the amendments in the order in which he went through them. I intend to try, as best as I am able, to deal with the key themes and that may mean that I group the amendments somewhat differently, but by either route we shall get to the heart of the argument that the noble Lord has put to the Committee.
  This is a large group of amendments. I hope I shall be able to include all those in the Marshalled List. A few moments ago I worried whether I had missed some, although I am confident that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has included them all. The amendments in this large group deal with a number of aspects of the provisions for appeals against Ofcom decisions on code modification. I shall explain how I shall deal with them.
  First, Amendments Nos. 131ZE, 131ZF and 131A concern a number of the aspects of the procedure for appeals which are set out in Schedule 22 of the Bill; secondly, I shall address Amendments Nos. 131ZA and 131ZB, which concern the categories of person who may appeal a decision; thirdly, I shall address
  GC 158
  Amendment No. 131ZD which concerns the consultation on secondary orders arising from these provisions; and fourthly, I shall address those amendments that concern the scope of the appeals procedure, the process itself and the role of the Competition Commission. I propose to address Amendments Nos. 131ZC and 131B together, as I believe that they are designed to work in unison. Having listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I believe he has made the point that they are intended to work together as well. I shall then address Amendment No. 131C and finally Amendment No. 132.
  It may be helpful if I preface these groupings by trying to provide some definitions which I hope will be a working basis for understanding what we mean by the various terms that are used. I am conscious of the fact, particularly when dealing with an eminent lawyer, that what is meant by the word "appeal" in different contexts could be thought to mean different things. So I would like to proceed on the basis of what the Government believe they mean.
  The debate in the area can become systematically and semantically confusing. Industry parties sometimes refer to what we term "appeal by way of a rehearing" as a full appeal on the merits. To avoid confusion, I want to describe what we are providing as an appeal by way of a review on the merits to distinguish it from an appeal by way of a rehearing and to avoid the language of a full appeal on the merits, one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in his submission about what it might or might not be appropriate to do.
  I also want to deal with one or two other definitions which have come up in your Lordships' debate on the Bill on a few occasions and which I, with the greatest respect, feel could do with a little more definition as well. We have all, on all sides of this debate, referred to the desirability of transparency and, in the course of today's debate, particularly to accountability. I am aware that much of what I will have to say will also deal in a slightly more elaborate way with the concept of proportionality—that any action should be in proportion to the risk and that the penalties should be in proportion to the harm done. Otherwise, I fear we will be looking at processes in a way that could lead to a far greater than proportionate response and, of course, part of our debate is about whether it is proportionate or not. For those reasons, I prefer the clarity.
  I also hope that what I have to say will bear on consistency and targeting. If we are to talk about principles of good regulation, those are also important principles to observe as we try to construct a legal framework.
  With that preamble, let me start with Amendment No. 131ZE. I am grateful to the noble Lords Opposite for this amendment; I am aware that the initial period of time in which to bring an appeal is something about which a number of parties in the industry have had real concerns. Many of those have been highlighted by the representations made this afternoon. In particular, the

  GC 159
  noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has talked about the time that will be needed for a process, the time that will be needed for a full board consideration of such a process, and so on. I took careful note of all that he said.
  I stress that our principal concern remains to ensure that the appeals process is proportionate—I defined proportionate a few moments ago—and does not introduce unnecessary regulatory uncertainty and delay. That benefits nobody. Generally, I remain satisfied that the timescales are suitable for the process we are providing. I am concerned that doubling the period in which it would be unclear to market participants whether a decision is to be subject to an appeal, as envisaged by the amendment, would unduly increase the degree of regulatory uncertainty to which I have just referred. However, I have concluded that we might usefully look again at the length of the initial period in which parties can make an application for permission to appeal to the Competition Commission. I therefore propose to take the matter away for further consideration and to come back to the question at Report.
  I turn to Amendment No. 131ZE. This amendment to Schedule 22 would require Ofgem to publish its code modification decision,
  "in a manner which is appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it".
  The proposers will be aware that the processes for code modifications are currently laid out in the licence conditions relating to a particular code and the various codes themselves. Section 49A of the Electricity Act 1989 and Section 38A of the Gas Act 1986 require Ofgem to publish reasons for any direction or consent it gives in pursuance of a licence condition which includes code modifications. That matter was covered in part by our debates in the last meeting of the Grand Committee, which I believe noble Lords will find at col. 105 of the Official Report.
  The reasons for Ofgem's decision are to be published in a manner such as Ofgem considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the matter to the attention of persons likely to be interested. Pursuant to Section 49A(3) of the Electricity Act and Section 38A(3) of the Gas Act, Ofgem also sends a letter with a copy of the decision and Ofgem's reasons for the decision to every licence holder to whose licence or to whom the decision relates. Therefore, our view is that the amendment is unnecessary. The provision exists in legislation and, again, I urge noble Lords to look at those provisions in other legislation to satisfy themselves that the matters are covered and that my contention is a good one.
  Amendment No. 131A relates to the provision of a special procedure for the exercise of the power contained in paragraph 14 of Schedule 22, which enables the modification of the time limits which apply for the purposes of appeals to the Competition Commission against decisions of GEMA under Clause 144. That power is limited to substituting different time limits for the ones in Schedule 22 and is subject to the negative procedure, as Members of the Committee will have observed. Amendment No. 131A would
  GC 160
  introduce a mandatory parliamentary consultation on a draft order before a draft statutory instrument could be laid before the House.
  According to my recollection, we have already discussed this kind of provision on a significant number of occasions in this Grand Committee—on Amendments Nos. 119D, 144A, 146A and 146B. I do not believe that it would add a great deal to reiterate all the arguments from those previous debates this afternoon, beyond saying that paragraph 14 of Schedule 22 is far removed from the type of power for which Parliament has considered that a special procedure should apply.
  We believe that the Competition Commission review of the regulator's decision, which I have described, strikes the right balance. The Government's concern throughout has been to find a proportionate appeal mechanism. That requires increasing accountability for code modification decisions without undermining the independence of Ofgem as a sector regulator or introducing undue regulatory uncertainty or delay. The appeals mechanism provided for in the Bill is a proportionate policy solution. I shall say a little more in due course about how the mechanism compares with judicial review and why the process is different for licence condition appeals—all matters which, quite properly, were raised.
  I now turn to the amendments concerned with the categories of people who can appeal. Amendments Nos. 131ZA and 131ZB seek to replace the requirement for appellants to be parties "materially affected" by a decision with a lesser requirement that they be parties,
  "with a sufficient interest in that decision".
  The parties here may be legal persons or bodies representing them, such as Energywatch. Indeed, a number of other possible examples are cited in the Explanatory Notes.
  I am aware that some within the industry are concerned that "materially affected" represents too narrow a test. I hope that I can use this opportunity to allay some fears on that point. While it may be a matter for the Competition Commission to consider whether a party bringing an application is "materially affected", we envisage that, in the case of the appeals process, it will include industry participants who are parties to the codes and it could include groups of consumers or even, conceivably, major individual consumers.
  I find it difficult to imagine what additional parties the proposers would hope to allow to appeal, but if any were to emerge the Competition Commission would be able to decide whether they met the test. It follows that, in our view, this amendment is unnecessary. The formulation as drafted in the Bill is a proportionate solution. The proposition is a disproportionate solution.
  Amendment No. 131ZD seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult the parties to the codes which we intend to be within the scope of appeals before making any orders under this section of the Bill.

  GC 161
  I agree with the proposers that it is right that the Secretary of State should consult parties to these codes. However, such persons would be caught by the existing requirement for the Secretary of State to consult,
  "such other persons as he considers appropriate".
  The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
  I turn to the important issue of the scope of the appeals mechanism and the role that the Competition Commission will play. I have already made one brief comment on the matter. Noble Lords may be aware that this is an area of considerable interest—and for very obvious reasons—to the industry. There are differences of opinion between industry players about the issues. While some are pressing for a much broader right to appeal than we are providing, others do not agree with that broadening. Centrica, for example, is opposed to broadening the scope of the appeals process and has indicated that it is "fully supportive" of the provisions as drafted. National Grid Transco has taken a similar position. There is no unanimity about the process in that sense.
  I intend to address the various amendments relating to this issue before setting out the Government's thinking and the way forward. I propose to address Amendments Nos. 131ZC and 131B together as they are designed to work in unison.
  Amendment No. 131ZC would require appellants to set out the detailed grounds for their appeal in their application for permission to appeal. Amendment No. 131B would remove subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 146 which set out what evidence the Competition Commission may have regard to when determining an appeal and grounds on which it may find that a decision was wrong.
  The joint effect of Amendments Nos. 131ZC and 131B would be to mirror the provisions in the Communications Act, a point that was made to us. The effect would be that the appeals process might in some cases amount to a rehearing. On the basis of the amendments, it is hard to see that it could lead in another direction. This would broaden the scope of the appeals process unacceptably and introduce an unacceptable level of regulatory uncertainty and delay. We do not consider that to be an appropriate approach here.
  Amendment No. 131C seems to be designed to achieve a similar end to Amendments Nos. 131 ZC and 131 B. I should apologise for the alphabet soup. I hope that everyone can follow it; it appears to be trying to do the same thing by a different route. I would add that an additional ground for appeal would significantly widen the potential scope of the appeals process. Again, I do not consider the amendment to be appropriate as it would introduce an unacceptable level of regulatory uncertainty and delay, and that cannot be a proportionate solution.
  I turn to Amendment No. 132. I am aware that this amendment appeared before some of the earlier ones and therefore I want to try to reflect on it with some care as it may have implications for amendments that appear later.
  GC 162
  The amendment would add an extra ground on which a code modification could succeed. It is proposed that an appeal might succeed where a decision was,
  "so unreasonable that no reasonable regulator would make it".
  That is what is known as "Wednesbury unreasonableness"—from the case in which it was defined.
  I assure Members of the Committee that it is intended that, were Ofgem to act with "Wednesbury unreasonableness" in reaching a decision, an appeal against that decision should succeed. The provisions are designed to allow for a review of Ofgem's decision, and one way in which an applicant might succeed would be by showing that,
  "no reasonable regulator would have taken such a decision".
  However, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that his amendment has given us occasion further to examine whether the provisions as drafted could usefully be clarified. That is why I made the point, without commitment, to think about the matter in terms of some of the amendments that came later. I am aware that there may still be a lack of clarity as to exactly what form of appeals mechanism is being proposed here. I take this opportunity to clarify what the Government intend and to explain why we believe that our provisions strike the right balance. However, we shall consider whether to table a government amendment on Report to ensure that the policy intention is as clearly expressed as it can be.
  The Government's concern in this area has been to find a proportionate appeals mechanism, reflecting industry concerns in consultation responses that the mechanism would need to strike the right balance. The mechanism, as drafted, is intended to do just that. It provides for an appeal by way of a review of the decision of Ofgem on its merits but it falls short of providing for a full rehearing or investigation of all the issues by the Competition Commission. The Competition Commission will review Ofgem's decision against the objectives of the code in question and Ofgem's statutory duties, as well as reviewing whether the decision was correct in fact and in law.
  Clause 146 provides that the appeal can be allowed if the Competition Commission is satisfied that a decision was "wrong" on certain specified grounds. The word "wrong" here is significant as it reflects the fact that the Competition Commission should adopt the same approach as would, for example, the Court of Appeal in hearing an appeal against a decision of a lower court. In that situation, the civil procedure rules which govern procedure in our civil courts make it clear that the appellate court may intervene when a lower court has made a decision which was "wrong". Those rules go on to elaborate what it means for a decision to be "wrong" by reference to various decided cases—in particular, the House of Lords case of G v G in 1985.
  In relation to the exercise of discretion by the regulator, it means that Ofgem is able to set its policy in order to reach decisions hut, in circumstances in which it chooses from a number of possible options to

  GC 163
  implement its policy, the Competition Commission will be able to review those options. If the Competition Commission considers that in relation to the exercise of a discretion by Ofgem there is a permissible approach different from the one taken by Ofgem, then, before the Competition Commission can hold that Ofgem had erred, it must first ask itself two questions. It must ask itself, first, whether the other permissible approach is better and, secondly, whether the difference between its view and that of Ofgem falls outside the boundaries of reasonable disagreement. The Competition Commission can say that Ofgem's decision was "wrong" only if it satisfies both those criteria.
  The Competition Commission will therefore look at the substance of the decision and not only at the process by which it was reached. That was one of the key burdens of the points put forward in Committee today. It should be clearly understood that there is no matter on which Ofgem has discretion to review a code modification that will not fall within the scope of the Competition Commission's powers of review. However, the Competition Commission will not hold a rehearing requiring it to rework all the analysis. That would add substantially to the length of the process and introduce an unacceptable level of regulatory uncertainty and delay.
  It will be clear to your Lordships from this analysis that what we intend therefore is a tailored appeals mechanism. It is different from judicial review, which does not allow a review of the merits of the decision in the manner proposed here. It is also different from a full rehearing of the case, such as is possible within the scope of the provisions in the electronic communications sector. It is a tailored mechanism, and we believe that it should be a tailored mechanism. I am confident that it will suit the purpose for which it is designed. That is why I mentioned the kinds of criteria at the beginning that should be applied, including consistency.
  However, on re-examining the provisions in the light of the noble Lord's amendment, we have concluded that the provisions as drafted could be usefully clarified to make more explicit what we intend. I therefore wish to agree to consider Amendment No. 132 with the provision I have made about amendments that have arrived subsequently and examine whether an alternative formulation would better express the policy intention I have described. But I hope that noble Lords will feel—and I apologise for the length in setting the issue out—that the objectives are ones that have been put to us. In that light, I hope that the amendments can be withdrawn.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble Lord for his thorough response to the submissions I made in my opening speech. As far as concerns Amendment No. 131ZE—the amendment that deals with time limits for appeal—the Minister was kind enough to say that he would go away and reflect on the matter between now and Report. I should like to say how grateful I am to
  GC 164
  the noble Lord for responding in that way. He reflected on the importance of proportionality in procedural as well as substantive matters. I, of course, agree with him; but I hope that he will reach the conclusion between now and the Report stage that, after mature consideration, the principle of proportionality is not properly respected by a time limit of a mere 10 days.
  Secondly, the Minister dealt with Amendment No. 131ZF, the amendment that refers to publications. He argued, with considerable force, that the amendment was unnecessary. The provision contained in the Bill is a common provision, used in other legislation; and as far as he could recall no problems had arisen in those respects. I shall go away and look at the examples he cited and reflect on whether I should return to the matter on Report.
  As far as concerns Amendment No. 131A—the amendment that deals with the modification of time limits by negative order—I am hound to say that the amendment is important to us because of the very restrictive approach the Government have taken in the Bill. Had the Government been more balanced in the way they approached the time limit issue in relation to appeals, we may have been less concerned about the fact that those time limits could be altered by negative order. In other words, our concern that even tighter time limits might follow from those already in the Bill is to some degree reflected in our amendment on the negative order.
  On Amendments Nos. 131ZA and 131ZE—the amendments which relate to the parties affected—I drew some comfort from the Minister's statement, on the record, that the parties envisaged would include industrial participants, who are parties to the code, groups of consumers or major individual consumers. That is a helpful response. I am grateful to the Minister for that. In the light of that response, between now and Report stage I shall reflect on whether it would be appropriate for me to re-table the amendments in their existing or in some other form.
  I turn to Amendment No. 131ZD, the amendment which draws the Committee's attention to the issue of consultation. The Minister said, in effect, "What are you worried about?". The clause in the Bill is cast very widely. That is precisely why I am worried about it. A clause cast too widely can often be as dangerous, or more dangerous, to the individual as a clause cast too narrowly. The concern here is that the degree of discretion given is such that it would be extremely difficult to pin a public authority down in any legal action if it were exercised in an irresponsible way. I have heard what the Minister says and I shall also think again about the amendment before Report stage.
  I now turn to what I believe we all consider to be the most important amendments in this group: those concerned with the definition of appeal. The Minister helpfully reflected aloud on what the Bill intended to achieve. If I understand him correctly, he said that it was more than judicial review but less than a full rehearing on the merits. He used the expression "a tailored approach"; others might call it a half way

  GC 165
  house or a one third of the way house or a three quarters of the way house between judicial review and a full rehearing. The Minister was also kind enough to say that he will reconsider the text of the Bill between now and Report stage to see whether or not the tailored approach that was sought to be achieved in the Bill reflects exactly the position the noble Lord seeks on the spectrum between judicial review and a full rehearing.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that and we shall look with interest to see what emerges at Report stage. I have two reflections in conclusion. The first one is that we still need from the Government to hear what it is about this Bill, and the appeal procedure contained in it, that makes it different from the appeal procedure contained in the Communications Act. Why is the gas and electricity industry different from the communications industry? Why are the appellant's rights so much weaker in the gas and the electricity industries than in the communications industry?
  My second point is simply that if the Minister looks at what is in the Bill, I think it is fair to say that, on a reasonable construction of its words, he will conclude that what is in the Bill is less than judicial review. The statutory procedure is even narrower than judicial review. If I am right about that, I should be confident that at Report stage we shall see some different words in the Bill from those that we see now.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, I should just like to say that I am most grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, said about my amendment. With my noble friend Lord Kingsland, I look forward to seeing what the Government produce on Report. I would also ask the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, to make no apology for the length of his response. It is a hugely important matter, and I thought that he dealt with it extremely effectively. But, of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating at Report stage. I am most grateful.
  Lord Kingsland: Now, with a degree of confidence, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [[Amendments Nos. 131ZB to 131ZD not moved.]
  Clause 144 agreed to.
  Clause 145 agreed to.
  Schedule 22 [Procedure for appeals under section 144]:
  [Amendments Nos. 131ZE and 131ZF not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 131ZG:
  Page 235, line 42, leave out "and"
  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 131ZG and 131ZH seek to correct some minor inconsistencies in Schedule 22. We are grateful to Energywatch for having alerted us to this. At present the category of persons who are required to be informed of an original application to appeal, and those who are required to be informed of a decision by the Competition
  GC 166
  Commission as to whether or not to grant leave, are differently expressed. These two amendments simply bring those two in line.
  Amendment No. 131ZJ, the third amendment in this group, also seeks to correct an additional inconsistency in the appeals provisions. In the Bill as drafted, Ofgem is given a right to override a decision by the Competition Commission to "stop the clock" while an appeal proceeds if it would impact on security of supply. However, our intention is to exclude from the whole appeal procedure—for which we will use the secondary order provisions in Clause 144—decisions which relate to security of supply or become so during the course of the appeal. Therefore, this provision is redundant, and the amendment will remove it. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 131ZH and 131ZJ:
  Page 235, line 43, at end insert "; and
  (c) to each person who was sent a copy of the application in accordance with sub-paragraph (7)."
  Page 237, line 29, leave out sub-paragraphs (6) to (9).
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 131A not moved.]
  Schedule 22, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 146 [Determination of appeals]:
  [Amendments Nos. 131B to 132 not moved.]
  Clause 146 agreed to.
  Clauses 147 to 149 agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 132ZA:
  After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "MEANING OF "HIGH VOLTAGE LINE"
  (1) In subsection (1) of section 64 of the 1989 Act (interpretation of Part 1), for the definitions of "high voltage line" and "low voltage line" substitute—
  "'high voltage line' means an electric line which—

  (a) if it is in Scotland or is a relevant offshore line (as defined in subsection (1A), is of a nominal voltage of 132 kilovolts or more; and

  (b) in any other case, is of a nominal voltage of more than 132 kilovolts, and 'low voltage line' shall be construed accordingly;".

  (2) After that subsection insert
  "(1A) An electric line is a relevant offshore line for the purposes of the definition in subsection (1) of 'high voltage line' if—

  (a) it is in an area of the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom or an area designated under section 1 (7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964; and

  (b) it is used—

  (i) to convey electricity to a place in Scotland; or

  (ii) to convey, to any other place, electricity generated by a generating station that is situated in an area mentioned in paragraph (a).""

  The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
  The Duke of Montrose: I understand that Amendment No. 132ZA is about the meaning of a high voltage line. Is the provision intended to bring the Scottish 132 kilovolt lines into the Transco network? Is this the clause that will allow Transco to take over the Scottish 132 kilovolt lines?
  Lord Williams of Elvel: I understood that this amendment had already been debated. If I am wrong, then I am wrong. However, if it has already been debated, then I do not think that the noble Duke is in order.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I beg to differ. We are told that anyone can speak to any amendment on the Marshalled List. My noble friend asked a question and it is one that I should like to ask, too. We must be absolutely clear about what happens in this matter. I want to be clear about it because those of us who are not professionals in the electricity industry—I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is one either—find it difficult to follow what the Government are doing in relation to the proposals that we have heard from various parts of the industry. Can the Minister confirm that here the various categories of lines are being brought into line and that the 132-kilovolt lines can be counted as transmission? Does that apply all over the country and does it meet the submission made by the Scottish generators?
  Lord Whitty: It is difficult to relate this matter to the part of the Bill to which it refers, but we are dealing with offshore transmissions here. As the noble Baroness knows, there is a difference between the voltage in Scotland and that in England and Wales. Without referring to the original text of the Bill, the amendment defines the somewhat different situation in Scotland.
  The Duke of Montrose: Perhaps the Minister could write to me about that matter. With regard to the high voltage lines, the amendment states,
  "if it is in Scotland or is a relevant offshore line".
  Therefore, it seems to apply to both.
  Lord Whitty: I had better undertake to write to the noble Duke.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 132A:
  After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "APPLICATION OF RENEWABLES OBLIGATION TO COAL MINE METHANE
  For the definition of "renewable sources" in section 32(8) of the 1989 Act, substitute—
  ""renewable sources" means sources of energy other than fossil fuel or nuclear fuel, but includes—

  (a) waste of which not more than a specified proportion is waste which is, or is derived from, fossil fuel; and

  coal mine methane;

  "coal mine methane" means methane vented from abandoned coal mines"."
  The noble Lord said: I hope not to take too long in moving this amendment, but the Minister will recognise that some history relates to this issue. The methane that escapes into the atmosphere from abandoned mines as a result of what I believe is now recognised as microbial degradation seeps up through faults and cracks in the earth and poisons the atmosphere. The question is whether that gas should receive the special treatment awarded to other forms of methane escape—for example, in landfill—and qualify for support through the renewables obligation.
  I believe one has to start from the proposition that coal mine methane is a hazardous waste gas. It is possible to exemplify that by reminding noble Lords that it is not so long since a small town in Derbyshire—Arkwright Town—had to be demolished because it had become uninhabitable as a result of coal mine methane escaping into the surrounding atmosphere. It is also recognised as hazardous because housing in many areas—in particular, in mining areas—is still blighted by coal mine methane. That issue must be dealt with. If one compares it with, for example, the fuss that was made some years ago about the problem of radon in ordinary dwellings—I suspect that that was many, many times less hazardous than the methane which escapes into the atmosphere from abandoned mines—I believe one can make a case for saying that it must be dealt with.
  In addition, dealing with coal mine methane would be entirely in accordance with the Government's overall environmental objectives. Such methane has what I might call a "global warming potential" 23 times greater than carbon dioxide. That has been well established and is not challenged by anybody. Therefore, if this waste gas can be captured and used for generation, it cuts its global warming potential—its GWP—by more than 100 per cent. It saves nine times more CO2e equivalent per kilowatt hour than is generated by wind power. I shall come hack to that point in a few minutes.
  Coal mine methane is therefore a clean, strategic source of energy with the potential to contribute perhaps up to 450 megawatts of generation capacity by 2010, the equivalent of hundreds of large wind turbines.
  In this country, investment in capturing and using coal mine methane is virtually on hold. In contrast, the German Government fully support this new carbon mitigation technology and the industry there is now booming. There is investment; it is expanding; the methane is being captured; and more than 120 megawatts of power is now already in store there, using CMM.
  An extension of the renewables obligation from 10.4 per cent to 11.4 per cent would help the Government to meet their target and help a struggling industry which was, at one time, recognised by Ministers as a viable infant industry. It is the sort of industry we ought to be dealing with to establish our position here and to deal with a very real problem.
  Over the past two or three years, this case has been made to many noble Lords and Members of another place by the very active body, the Association of Coal

  GC 169
  Mine Methane Operators. I took it upon myself, some two or three years ago, to establish a small, all-party group in this House to see Ministers and make the case. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was a very distinguished member of that group. Two other members are, sadly, no longer with us—Lord Hardy of Wath and Lord Dormand of Easington. Both came from coal mine areas and both knew very much what they were talking about. I was very grateful to have their support.
  We went to see Ministers at the DTI—Brian Wilson was then the Minister for Energy. We went to see Ministers at the Department of the Environment—in particular, Michael Meacher. Neither of those Ministers are still in that position. I eventually went to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—pulling rank, in a sense, because it was a job which I held about 20 years ago—and Paul Boateng was very kind in seeing me.
  All those Ministers had one thing in common—they expressed a very keen desire to help. They appeared to recognise the strength of our case and each, in respect of their own responsibilities, was concerned to make it clear to them and, in some cases, to their officials, that this needed to be done. Indeed, when we went to see Michael Meacher and said that coal mine methane ought to be brought within the emissions trading scheme, he apologised to us that it was even necessary for us to come and make that case. However, nothing has happened, with the exception of the Treasury agreeing to exempt coal mine methane from the climate change levy. As I put it at a meeting of the ACCMO a little later, that was one down and two to go. There is no proper incentive to develop coal mine methane such as the renewables obligations will provide, and there is as yet no access for coal mine methane operators to any of the emissions trading schemes.
  This really is a disgraceful state of affairs. It is also completely illogical. My right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer established the regime for landfill gas—that is, methane. The landfill arrangements—the tax and all the other arrangements that go with it—are now an integral part of the public arrangements for dealing with energy and escaping gas. That is something which needed to be built on. But when we pointed out on the Floor of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who at that stage was still answering questions about energy, which at the moment he does not seem to do—the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will remember this—that the Germans had had no difficulty in extending their renewables obligation to coal mine methane, he said that we would not be so stupid, thereby both disappointing everyone in the House and insulting the Germans.
  It was an extraordinary decision that something which another member of the Community felt perfectly able to do was apparently impossible for us to do. It is completely illogical that methane captured from landfill sites and sewage farms was included in
  GC 170
  the renewables obligation while chemically identical methane captured from abandoned coal mines was excluded.
  Another point, which I think the Chief Secretary recognised when I met him, is that an increased renewables obligation would cost the Treasury nothing and add less than 0.6 per cent to consumers' electricity bills by 2010. Contrast that with the position of methane captured from working collieries. This was given a £21 million subsidy in the UK emissions trading scheme incentives auction. For some reason, coal mine methane from abandoned mines was excluded by the department of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
  At the draft stage of the DTI independent consultants' study into support for CM M, the conclusion was that including this waste gas in the renewables obligation was the best method. I understand that when the report comes to be published, that recommendation from the independent consultants is due to be excised.
  The inclusion of CMM in an increased renewables obligation is supported by the Renewable Power Association, the Welsh Assembly, several of the regional development agencies and, as I said, a cross-party coalition of noble Lords and Members of another place.
  Three years ago in 2001, the British industry in this area was well ahead of the Germans. It has now fallen behind and is stagnating. One has to ask, is this yet another case of British technology with a world-wide lead being overtaken by overseas competitors because of a lack of support by officialdom in this country?
  I think there is an overwhelming case that coal mine methane should benefit from the renewables obligation. I am tempted to guess why it is that Ministers can express such huge support for this proposition when we go to see them but still fail to do anything about it. I believe the reason is that they see—as with combined heat and power, which is another similar example—it as impinging on their targets for wind energy. Noble Lords may not have had the chance to read the recent report that I believe was published just before the weekend on renewable energy. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will have seen it. The report states just how difficult it will be for the Government to achieve their renewable energy targets, not just by 2010 but by 2015 and beyond. It also talked about the innumerable steps that now need to be taken if those targets are going to be met. I can well understand the attraction of an argument put to Ministers—
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.6 p.m. to 5.16 p.m.]
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I was drawing my remarks to a close. It seems to me that I am fated to be interrupted. My peroration disappears into the ether along, no doubt, with a lot of coal mine methane. But perhaps I may just finish my remarks. I was trying to explore the possible reasons for there appearing to be such resistance within Whitehall to the extension of the

  GC 171
  renewables obligation for coal mine methane. I suggested that one reason was the extent to which it achieved the CO2 objectives and would draw off some of the renewables obligation money, thus impacting adversely on wind power.
  I have received a comment on this issue from a director of a consulting firm, who writes:
  "We have found the DTI privately sympathetic but reluctant to apply the resources needed to carve out CMM from the exclusions from the scheme. Internal lawyers became concerned that precedents may be set that might allow CBM or normal gas production to seek ROC accreditation".
  Pausing there, I regard that as rubbish. A very specific thing is being asked for here and it has been consistently asked for by the all-party groups in both Houses—coal mine methane from abandoned coal mines. The note continues:
  "We proposed a number of solutions to these points (eg restrict the exemption to abandoned mines/historic mining areas as per your amendment)"—
  that is, the amendment that I am moving—
  "but found the DTI lacking in resolve to make the required effort".
  My correspondent goes on to say: "I hope that, with your help, we will at last achieve the fair result that will put CMM (coal mine methane) on a par with Landfill Gas".
  In their energy White Paper, the Government set as their central target the reduction of CO2 emissions in order to play a part in resolving the global climate change problem. Therefore, I simply do not understand why they find that they cannot give such an emission, which is 23 times as damaging as an ordinary CO2 emission, the necessary help to make the industry effective in this country. I beg to move.
  Lord Ezra: I have much pleasure in supporting Amendment No. 132A, so effectively moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I have had the pleasure of sitting on the joint group of Peers, which he has led for some years and which promotes this concept. Like him, I was much impressed by the way that the Ministers, whom we met, accepted the case. But, as soon as the case went into the back office, somehow or other the validity which the Ministers saw in it disappeared.
  I am as perplexed as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is and as, I am sure, are most noble Lords in the Grand Committee as to why there is this rearguard action to prevent such a desirable activity being pursued. Here we are talking of the escape of a really lethal gas, far more lethal to the environment than CO2, which could easily be dealt with—and that is being dealt with under the larger schemes. But there are now a number of smaller schemes, which, without specific support, cannot go ahead, but in aggregate would amount to a good deal of CO2 reduction. The case of Germany stands out, as that country has forged ahead, and British firms in the sector, disappointed at the lack of support in Britain, have moved there to develop their interests.
  GC 172
  It is incumbent on Ministers, unless they are prepared to accept the amendment, to let us know what lies behind the Government's objections to it which seem totally contradictory to their environmental policy as set out in the energy White Paper. We should be quite clear what the reasoning is. The case for doing what is suggested is so compelling and the cost for doing it is so small, that it is very difficult to see how objections to the amendment can be sustained.
  Lord Whitty: Noble Lords have made a strong case for regarding coal mine methane as something that could positively contribute to an energy policy. Indeed, there are aspects of government policy that already support that, and others that we are considering. What Noble Lords have not made the case for, and what is the basic objection to the amendment, is for coal mine methane to be treated as a renewable. It is not a renewable but a gas extracted from a fossil fuel. There is an argument about displacing support for other renewables, but there is also a legal and definitional point that we would not be able to obtain state aid approval, which would include the recycling of the fossil fuel fund, to support a technology under the renewables obligation, because it is not classified as a renewable under the renewables directive. There are both common-sense and legal reasons why we cannot regard coal mine methane as a renewable.
  The Government certainly recognise and value the benefits that coal mine methane provides through the tapping of emissions from abandoned and working mines and putting them to beneficial use. The Government have already demonstrated their support for that through the exemption from the climate change levy in last year's Budget, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred. That was approved by the European Commission and came into effect on 1 November. The energy White Paper also accepts the need to control CMM emissions and promises that we shall work with the industry and relevant environmental organisations to ensure that is done effectively. To that end, the DTI has commissioned a study to see whether any possible market mechanisms would be consistent with the aims of the White Paper and could be deployed to control the emissions. That study will report soon.
  The fact remains that coal mine methane cannot in the normal sense be regarded as renewable. Even when used for power generation it still emits carbon dioxide. so it cannot be said to be a clean fuel, although it does have advantages in relation to direct burning of carbon. However, it cannot be classified as a renewable fuel.
  The experience in Germany has been referred to. The German approach to coal mine methane is not one that we or other member states are seeking to follow, for the very reason that it effectively treats methane as a renewable, but not a renewable under the terms of the renewables obligation. The feed-in tariff, which is the mechanism used in Germany for support of coal

  GC 173
  mine methane, is not state aid as the renewables obligation is regarded as being, specifically with regard to the recycling of the buy-out fund.
  There are also difficulties with the trading scheme, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, also referred. With regard to a working mine, the amount of methane emitted can be measured and the benefit can also be measured. However, there is no measurable benefit from abandoned mines. While working mine methane is measurable, that would provide a basis on which to quantify the improvement in and the contribution to carbon saving through the emissions trading scheme. In addition to the DTI study to which I referred earlier, Defra has commissioned a separate study to determine a baseline for methane emissions which could enable coal mine methane to qualify for the emissions trading scheme and hence for the industry to receive a value for the emissions avoided through their use within the trading scheme context.
  We are aware that the argument made by the industry for extending the renewables obligation has been made very forcefully and very frequently. However, as the energy White Paper emphasised, the renewables obligation has a specific aim—to develop long-term, carbon-free generation technologies to the point where they become economically viable in their own right. Offering the obligation more widely risks undermining that longer term objective. To extend it specifically to methane extraction would be difficult to justify since you would then have to make a further calculation regarding how much methane leaks naturally and how much is extracted by the process of recovery which would not otherwise have been emitted. That form of measurement, which would feed back into the baseline of the calculations for the trading scheme, is also covered by the study commissioned by Defra.
  However, the basic objection—as opposed to any great conspiracy theory—to not using this mechanism to support the coal methane industry is that in no circumstances, either in logic or in law, could coal mine methane be regarded as a renewable fuel. There are, of course, safety issues, to which the noble Lord referred when he mentioned the Arkwright coal mine, which have to be taken into account by those responsible for such issues and for environmental controls, principally under the heading of health and safety. However, the environmental benefit of coal mine methane will not be able to be supported through its inclusion in the renewables obligation. There may be other ways in which we can support it, but not that way.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my noble friend's amendment but I am very puzzled. The Minister clearly said that at the end of the day it comes down to money and what money is allowed or is not allowed, and that the measure—I believe that I interpret him correctly—would fall foul of the state aid rule if we applied it in the way that my noble friend wishes. Therefore, my question to the Minister is, how does Germany do it? Why can Germany do something but we are not allowed to do it? We are all in the same Community battling under the same rules. I am absolutely intrigued by the matter.
  GC 174
  The Minister said that the DTI has commissioned a study that will report soon and that Defra has also commissioned a study. How soon will those reports be published and what kind of information can we expect from them? My initial reaction is that I should have thought that what applies in one country would apply in another. I am very confused.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: Germany is not operating under the renewables obligation to support the methane industry.
  Baroness Byford: Even so.
  Lord Whitty: In order to benefit from the renewables obligation, we have to specify technologies that are specified in the renewables directive. That is not the way that the Germans are supporting the coal methane industry. They are doing it by means of a system which they refer to as a "feed-in tariff", which results in favourable pricing of the methane connection into the system. However, the German scheme does not include coal mine methane under a renewables obligation. That is no different. That is what would fall foul of the state aid rules, from which support for renewables has to have an exemption. It can only be those renewables that are referred to in the renewables directive.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I can understand the distinction which the Minister is drawing. If the renewables obligation defines technologies, I can understand why that is not a route we can use. However, why can we not use the route that the Germans use—which, although it is obviously outwith that, appears to be acceptable?
  Lord Whitty: This may not be an entirely satisfactory answer, but the bit of the renewables obligation which would benefit coal mine methane concerns recycling of the fossil fuel fund. By any definition, that is clearly state aid. The feed-in tariff is not state aid because effectively no money is forgone or provided to the coal mine methane sector. Therefore, it does not fall foul of the state aid obligations.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: I have listened very carefully to the debate and I feel that noble Lords opposite have a point. Why can we not do what the Germans do regardless of the renewables obligation?
  Lord Whitty: Even if we could do what the Germans do, that is not what this amendment says. This amendment is calling for its use. So even if I accepted my noble friend's strictures on this, I could not accept this amendment. We would therefore have to return to the issue, as I suspect we will do in any case. However, tariff structures—unlike a straight payment—are not part of the normal definition of state aid.
  The DTI is looking at the various options and other matters related to coal mine methane. That report should be available in a couple of months. The Defra reports will take slightly longer. We shall have to see

  GC 175
  whether the DTI report throws any light on this issue. Either way, I think that this amendment is ruled out in relation both to logic, as coal methane cannot really be regarded as a renewable, and to the legal provisions under state aid rules.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: It may very well be that Amendment No. 132A does not meet the definition of renewable obligation and the other points which the Minister mentioned. It may well be that we cannot do what the Germans seem to do. However, the Germans have gone right ahead with their industry in this way, while we are still thinking about it. The DTI is still thinking about ways that it can make it happen. The report may come out in two months, but it may not cover this particular matter.
  I think that the Minister needs to go back and talk with his officials to see whether something can be done. I am quite certain that my noble friend will put his thinking cap on and find a way which is acceptable on Report. However, it would be far better if the Minister could persuade the DTI to think about how the Germans can do it. If they cannot do it within the next couple of weeks, I very much hope that they will be able to provide an answer before the Bill goes to another place for consideration there.
  Lord Ezra: It seems to me that we must pursue this matter; we cannot simply leave it there. I am not convinced by the argument that this is not a renewable source. The coal reserves in this country are virtually unlimited. Be that as it may, if this is not the route to take, I believe we must seriously consider some other route and bring forward on Report something approximating the German system, which apparently does not encounter the resistance which the Government feel our amendment would meet.
  Certainly, we cannot miss the opportunity provided by the debates on this Bill while we wait for these leisurely inquiries. After all, we have now been looking into this matter for a number of years. If the Government are really committed to a future with a low-carbon economy in Britain—no one is talking about a non-carbon economy; that is impossible—then this particular proposition, which would make use of colliery methane, would certainly contribute to that, and I believe we must seriously consider that option. I await with interest what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has to say on the matter.
  Lord Whitty: Before the noble Lord rises to speak, I should point out that under the climate change levy system we have provided for an exemption for methane, recognising the kind of benefit to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, refers. That has also been cleared by the European Commission and it does something which the Germans do not do. Therefore, we all have our different ways of approaching this matter and it is not necessarily the case that, just because the Germans are operating it, we should do exactly the same.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: In the mean time, firms that have been working on extracting, trapping and using
  GC 176
  coal mine methane in this country are now emigrating to Germany. That is what they are doing. A few of the big ones may still be here but all the rest are deciding that, if they are to develop and use this technology, they must go to Germany.
  I should have found the Minister's reply mildly more acceptable if he had shown one iota of sympathy for the case that has been made. We have found—the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will endorse this—that, in private, Ministers tell us that they have every sympathy with the case that we have made. However, every time a Minister stands up in public, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has done this afternoon, he virtually bans it.
  As my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon said, we await the reports, which may or may not be made before this Bill is enacted. However, that is not good enough. Here is a way in which the Government could hit directly at their CO2 target—the central thrust of the energy White Paper. The renewables are a means to that end; they are not an end in themselves. The reduction of CO2 is the end to be achieved if we are to have an impact on climate change. Here is an equivalent source of CO2 which could be trapped and used and which would make a marked contribution to that struggle, yet nothing has been done.
  In a sense, the climate change levy was a sop. It removed a minor disincentive—that is all. However, any effective encouragement to the industry, such as the renewables obligation or, as we heard in a number of our submissions to Ministers in meetings, the equivalent of a renewables obligation—that is, something of the same value but without the tag "renewable"—is absent. Indeed, even since then, work has been carried out which establishes, I believe beyond doubt, that what is left behind when a mine is abandoned are not finite pockets of gas but gas produced by a continuous process of microbial action on the coal. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, that lasts for hundreds of years and it will continue to be produced. It is not simply the case that, once the pockets have gone, that is the end of it.
  What is the difference between landfill methane and that type of methane? I find this debate infinitely depressing. It will not surprise the Minister in the least to know that we shall certainly return to the matter on Report. We shall consider what he said about the apparent magic of the word "renewable", although, as I said, the microbial action is pretty well indefinite. We shall consider what the Minister said and return to the matter, and I know that I shall have support from more than one part of the House. I am most grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said in his brief intervention. When we return to the matter, I believe that the Minister will need to give a far better reply if he is to persuade the House not to accept our amendment. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 132B:
  After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "PUBLICATION OF DETERMINATIONS
  (1) Section 36 of the Gas Act 1986 (c. 44) (keeping of register) is amended as follows.
  (2) After subsection (2)(d) insert—
  "( ) every determination made under any provision of this Act;".
  (3) Section 49 of the 1989 Act (keeping of register) is amended as follows.
  (4) After subsection (2)(d) insert—
  "( ) every determination made under any provision of this Act:"."
  The noble Baroness said: Both the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989 require the energy regulator, Ofgem, to maintain a register containing the details of every determination made by him in respect of a licence. This important requirement does not extend to determinations made by Ofgem under primary legislation.
  Ofgem has extensive powers under both Acts to determine disputes. There are compelling arguments that the absence of a duty to publish such determinations is anomalous. This is particularly so in relation to Ofgem's statutory determination of disputes about standards of performance. Those powers arise under Section 33AB of the Gas Act 1986 and Section 39B of the Electricity Act 1989.
  The formal significance of these determinations is evidenced by the fact that the legislation specifically makes them final and enforceable as if they were judgments of what used to be called a county court, and is now called a district court. Despite this, Ofgem is not obliged to publish its determinations, and does not do so.
  This situation is not compatible with the principles of public access and regulatory transparency. It does not accord with the well known principle that if justice is to be done, it must be seen to be done.
  This country does not subscribe to the idea of secret courts or secret judgments. It does not facilitate judicial consistency because, in these cases, Ofgem is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. It does not enable the companies that are regulated by Ofgem to know what are the standards they will be required to follow, or whether they have been treated in the same way as other companies in the same position.
  In other words, the present situation is not compatible with the principles of regulatory transparency and consistency to which Ofgem professes to aspire. There is nothing under the existing statutory regime which prevents Ofgem publishing its decisions and its reasons and making them available to both the two industries but also to customers who have a major interest in the enforcement of standards of performance.
  Let me give an example of the need for publication of such decisions. In October 2002, there were widespread interruptions to electricity supplies following a major storm. Ofgem's determination of compensation affected many thousands of consumers.
  GC 178
  It required certain distribution companies to make substantial compensation payments. In the case of one company alone, it amounted to £1 million.
  The provisions of this sort of determination should in future be available to other members of the industry and to the public as of right. As I have just said, there is nothing to prevent Ofgem publishing its decisions, but it deliberately does not do so.
  This amendment will rectify that. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We support the amendment.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Triesman: The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, is quite right: the current wording of Section 36 of the Gas Act 1986 and Section 39 of the Electricity Act 1989 gives the authority adequate direction on what should be placed on the register. Both the Electricity and Gas Acts give very specific directions about what should be placed on the register. On the one occasion when the authority was challenged, with regard to the information that had not been placed on the register, the judge made no criticism of the authority, as the relevant information had been drawn to the attention of the entire industry, in any case.
  As the current set-up is clearly not failing, it is a little hard to see why it is necessary to make this particular change. This is a time when all of us—I suspect that we can count on all noble Lords on all sides of these discussions to agree with this point—are seeking to minimise the burden that legislation places on private and public sector entities. However, a blanket requirement of this kind would increase the amount of work imposed on the authority, which would be all right if there was a discernible benefit. I hope I am persuading noble Lords that in this case there would not be a discernible benefit.
  At a later point in Committee we shall discuss better regulatory practices. The authority is fully signed up to being guided by them. The principles of better regulation themselves include the idea that one should legislate only where it is necessary to do so—a point that we have mentioned in several of our discussions—and that legislation should be specific and targeted. The phrases in the amendment, "every determination" and "any provision", rather suggest that there would not be the kind of targeting or specificity which would be most beneficial.
  Overall, the requirements of the Gas and Electricity Acts for the authority to keep a register are expressed in broad terms. We believe that this approach delivers better results than if we were to be too prescriptive. The authority is committed to placing a wide range of public information on the register once such information is in final form. I believe that only the authority is in a really sound position to decide on that.
  Of course, the register in itself would not, and should not, be the only method of finding out about the authority's decisions. The authority has a thorough process when it comes to ensuring that information is drawn to the attention of those affected.

  GC 179
  I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for referring to the storms of 2002 because I believe that they provide interesting illustrations of what I mean. Determinations made after the storms of 2002 were put on the public register. These determinations were also provided electronically to everyone who requested them. MPs in every area affected by the storms of 2002 were also sent copies.
  Requests for determinations are rare but, when they do come in, it is already the authority's practice to send out information to everyone who has requested it, although some information such as financial declarations is considered confidential and that is omitted. The complete determination is provided only to the parties.
  While the current statutory requirement requires the authority only to make the contents of the register open for inspection, the practice of sending out the information is a good example of why we believe that giving the authority some discretion already produces very effective results. There seems no need for any driving force that would make us over-prescriptive.
  I understand—this seems to me to be important—that no requests for determinations have ever been turned down. I hope that provides reassurance on the point. In practice the measure seems to work as the noble Baroness, from what she has said, would wish and I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: In a few moments I shall certainly withdraw the amendment. I shall read very carefully what the Minister said. I do not wish to waste the Committee's time but I do not see why two Acts are able to accommodate the provision that we are discussing while this Bill cannot. The mere fact that no one has asked about the matter does not mean that the measure is not necessary. I suggest that it is not unnecessary. If the relevant information is kept in the register, that is all right. It should not be too difficult to do that. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 132C not moved.]
  Clause 150 [Additional inspectors]
  Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 132CA:
  Page 115, line 30, after "State" insert "or the National Assembly for Wales"
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 132CA I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 132CB to 132CF. Members of the Committee will recognise that this is an appropriate day—St David's day—on which to move such amendments. I am unsure—I shall ask my noble friend to explain—whether St Andrew is also involved in this matter. I speak only for St David although Scotland may also be involved.
  I shall recite the meaning behind the amendments. This part of the Bill is concerned with general regulations amending the Electricity Act 1989. That
  GC 180
  Act was passed before devolution, so Sections 36 and 37 and Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act 1989 have nothing to do with devolution. Part of my purpose is to ensure that the Bill becomes part of the devolutionary principle.
  We are dealing with planning matters; we are not dealing with the production of energy. Perhaps I may take the Committee through the existing situation. If a generating station as defined in Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989—this is not an issue of wind farms but of any generating station which makes an application—has an installed capacity of over 50 megawatts, it goes through a certain procedure and if it is under 50 megawatts it goes through another procedure. Under Section 37 high voltage overhead lines go through a more or less similar procedure.
  What are those procedures? In Schedule 8 the procedures are defined as follows: if the local planning authority objects to the planning application for a fossil fuel station, a nuclear power station, a wind farm or whatever, the Secretary of State is obliged to create a public inquiry. On the other hand, if the local authority says, "It is all very well, it seems a good idea to have a nuclear power station in Ceredigion", or wherever, as long as it is 50 megawatts plus it will not go to the National Assembly for Wales, but straight to the Secretary of State. The National Assembly for Wales has absolutely no locus in this matter at all. That was shown in one famous incident of a wind farm on the Cambrian Mountains, but I shall not go into that. That went straight to the Secretary of State, who said, "That is fine; the Ceredigion county council has said that it is okay by them". I have no particular brief against the Ceredigion county council, but I want to illustrate to the Committee what happens when Welsh county councils are, for one reason or another, decisive in their view that they want a particular piece of machinery on their hills.
  When we come to a public inquiry, the Secretary of State appoints an inspector: the National Assembly for Wales, which has no locus whatever, has nothing to do with it. So Clause 150 in the Bill proposes that Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act 1989 be amended to allow the Secretary of State to appoint the lead inspector in matters concerning Wales. That does not apply to Scotland—I hope that I shall receive some information on how it may or may not apply to Scotland—but it applies to Wales.
  My amendments simply say that if there are to be public inquiries, the National Assembly for Wales should have a locus. I hope that the Committee and my noble friend will consider this issue sympathetically, not because I am speaking for St David—although I am sure that if St David were here he would support me—but because I believe that if the Government wish devolution, the Government must will the means for devolution. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy is unfortunately unable to be here today due to a tragedy in his family. He very much regrets that he cannot be with the Committee but, had he been here, he would most certainly have supported

  GC 181
  the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Although I do not have all the information that he would have given, it is right that I should tell the Committee that that is our position.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am sure that if my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth were here, he would also have spoken at great length—well, at some length—and would have supported the amendment very strongly.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I notice from the Explanatory Notes to the Bill that the reason why the clause does not apply to Scotland is that developments in this respect will be in the hands of Scottish Ministers. That is all right by St Andrew, I am sure. However, will the Minister tell the Grand Committee whether the amendment and the clause that we are discussing are affected by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill? I thought that I understood that changes were being made in it that affected this issue, but I may be wrong.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I rise only to make one point. Of course, I agree with the point made by my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. I should in addition like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on having produced his amendment on St. David's Day. He is wearing a symbol of the day in his lapel. His ability to manage the proceedings of the Grand Committee staggers one's admiration.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: Several actors on the Grand Committee have been complicit in ensuring that this amendment appeared on St. David's day, for all sorts of reasons. In responding to my noble friend, I can tell him that he has quite a good case but he has brought it to the wrong Bill. That is what I am going to argue with him in a moment. He is well aware of the fact that great concern was expressed in Wales over the proposed development of the wind farm in the Cambrian mountains. It raised very significant issues, to which he referred. I am grateful that he referred to the issue en passant, including it as substance for his case, without going substantially into the issues, as I would have recognised the strength of the position that that illustrated.
  Suffice it to say that we regard the amendments as partial, in any case. They refer to additional inspectors, when what my noble friend is seeking is that the whole concept of who should appoint the lead inspector and additional inspectors and who should make the decision on the proposal should be shifted, in Wales, from the Secretary of State to the National Assembly.
  We have been active in the wake of concerns that have been reflected. There is a tripartite working group of officials from the Wales Office, the National Assembly and the DTI already under way to examine the issues of whether consenting powers on power stations, and possibly other aspects of energy infrastructure, should be transferred from central government to the devolved administration. That is the burden of the amendment. That work is ongoing
  GC 182
  and will not report in the immediate future, but it will provide the base for potential legislative changes. But those changes would affect very significant statutory processes and transfer them to the National Assembly, if such a strategy were agreed on. My noble friend will appreciate that the vehicle for that transfer would probably be a transfer of functions order under the Government of Wales Act 1998 rather than this particular Bill. That work is being carried out against a background where the case which my noble friend put forward has significant substance and is strongly supported in Wales.
  I have no doubt that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, indicated, had her noble friend been present, we should have had the additional force of the argument being presented in lilting Welsh tones. It is a matter of great regret to us that he is not present today—for reasons that we understand. I mention, en passant, that he was unable to be present during debate on another Wales Bill last week in which I participated. Therefore, it is not only on St David's Day that the interests of Wales are involved in our deliberations in Grand Committee.
  The Scots have not asked for this development, probably because Scottish planning legislation is vastly different from that of Wales. The Welsh legislation forms an integral part of the English and Welsh position. That is why the crucial question of the devolved administration and the position of the National Assembly comes into force in relation to Wales, but the same anxieties do not exist in Scotland.
  I hope that my noble friend will recognise that the Government are not standing idly by against the background of the furore created last year with regard to Cefn Croes. There are other potential projects which affect Wales. But, in this respect, we are working towards the National Assembly as opposed to central government playing a proper role in this matter. However, this is not the Bill in which to provide for that and, in any event, as I believe my noble friend will recognise, the amendments fall considerably short of the necessary changes expected in legislation to achieve the objective that he seeks and for which I evince a degree of sympathy.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I would not particularly blame the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, or his noble friend if they felt that, instead of being frightfully active, the Government were moving rather slowly beside them. However, surely if the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, redrafted his amendments so that, in effect, they were amendments to the Electricity Act 1989, they would be valid here and entirely appropriate. It is not for me to tell him how to table his amendments, but I thought that that point should be made.
  Baroness Byford: My noble friend has poached what I was intending to say. I simply add that I am, again, alarmed to hear that the provision would be brought forward in the form of an order as the Minister suggests that this is not the right Bill and not the right

  GC 183
  place. However, I believe that we have had enough of that. If we can address this issue in a more direct way, I believe that we should do so. Indeed, my noble friend put forward a very good suggestion in that respect. I do not consider that it is acceptable simply to deal with matters in an order when we have the opportunity to put the provision on to the face of the Bill. Therefore, I support the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to my noble friend for expressing some sympathy with what I said. I agree that the amendments that I have tabled today do no more than simply trade an important issue. However, I do not believe that a tripartite group will produce anything in the immediate future. In fact, my noble friend used the words, "not in the immediate future … probably a transfer of functions order".
  Nothing concentrates the Government's mind so much as an amendment on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I give my noble friend notice that, when we reach Report, I shall take further action to amend paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act 1989, which, instead of conferring powers on the Secretary of State, confers those powers, so far as concerns Wales, on the National Assembly for Wales. I hope very much, and am sure, that noble Lords opposite will support me. I also hope that the Government will understand that I am determined. For the first time since 1997, I propose to oppose the Government if my amendments are not accepted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 132CB to 132CF not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 150 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Dixon-Smith: This is a probing debate. We need to have a serious discussion at this stage about what the Bill does. In my view, it seeks to perpetuate what I regard as an ethical anomaly in the practice of government. I stumbled on this matter by accident. I draw the attention of the Committee to Clause 150, headed "Additional inspectors", and to subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) and I shall read another Bill to the Committee which states:
  "The Secretary of State may direct the lead inspector—

  (a) to consider such matters relating to the application as are prescribed;

  (b) to make recommendations to the Secretary of State on those matters.

  (3) After considering any recommendations of the lead inspector the Secretary of State may—

  (a) appoint such number of additional inspectors as he thinks appropriate;

  (b) direct that each additional inspector must consider such matters relating to the application as the lead inspector decides.

  (4) An additional inspector must—

  (a) comply with such directions as to procedural matters as the lead inspector gives;

  (b) report to the lead inspector on the matter he is appointed to consider".

  A little later on in what I am reading, it states:
  "(7) In every case the lead inspector must report to the Secretary of State on—

  (a) his consideration of the application;

  (b) the consideration of the additional inspectors (if any) of the matters mentioned in subsection (3)(b).

  There is an amazing congruence between those two pieces of legislation. They are both before the House at this time. It is not surprising that there is a congruence because this second Bill deals with planning and compulsory purchase powers. In that Bill Clause 44 deals with major infrastructure projects of national or regional significance, which would obviously include major power transmission lines and major generating stations.
  The fact is that we have two planning systems in this country: we have a planning system that deals with planning matters that are normally dealt with and the energy department has its own planning system which deals with energy planning matters. I tried to find out the background to this situation. We are concerned with amending the Electricity Act 1989, but I asked myself whether that was always the situation and I do not believe that it was. Going back to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which is mentioned in the Electricity Act 1989, I find that statutory undertakers are dealt with and that is a different world. I suspect that the roots of this matter go right back to the 1940s. Section 225 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 states:
  "Where—
  "(a) an application for planning permission to develop land to which this subsection applies is made by statutory undertakers and is referred to the Secretary of State"—
  this is a planning Act and would concern a different Secretary of State from the Electricity Act—
  "under Part III of this Act: or
  (b) an appeal is made to the Secretary of State under Part III of this Act …
  the application or appeal shall be dealt with by the Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister".
  In Section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, there is a definition of the appropriate Minister. It states:
  "In this Act the 'appropriate Minister' … in relation to statutory undertakers carrying on an undertaking for the supply of electricity, gas or hydraulic power. means the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry",
  which is now the DTI. The significant part of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 is that.
  "an application … or an appeal … shall be dealt with by the Secretary of State [dealing with planning] and the appropriate Minister".
  So, in those days there was presumably joined-up government. The department took the planning lead—responsible for planning—and it was done in conjunction with the then appropriate government department.
  I went back to the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 to see whether I could get to the root of the matter, because that was the predecessor Act. I found more or less parallel wording. The fact of the matter is that we have a situation in which the government

  GC 185
  department responsible for studying and dealing with energy matters is also the planning department that has to grant the planning approval.
  I suggest that that is an ethical conflict of interest, which really should be dealt with. The Bill seeks to perpetuate the situation. I can understand that because it seems to me that it will be quite complicated to try to deal with it. I wonder whether we should take the opportunity, particularly now that the power industries are private industries, to put them on planning parity with everyone else, and to remove the planning powers of the DTI so that planning matters are dealt with under the legislation which is going through the House with precisely the same words in the planning and compulsory purchase powers.
  It was mere coincidence that I happened to read those two parts of these two separate pieces of legislation at almost the same time and I was alerted to this particular anomaly. It is an anomaly that could be dealt with at this stage. I thought that we should at the very least have a serious discussion to consider whether or not we should deal with it at this stage.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I strongly support the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in this subject. I am very grateful to him for raising an issue that otherwise might have been in danger of passing us by. I think it is a very important issue. The issue he raised about whether the department should be judge and jury in a case, of course, is particularly significant. Few applications—even for wind turbines which I suggest are relatively benign, although I know that quite often the noble Lord takes a different view regarding land-based wind turbines—provoke such strong feelings from the public as energy generation installations.
  I know that some Members of the Official Opposition have been questioning the Government on this issue—the Government have not made a statement—but if we were to envisage the building of new nuclear power stations, which we certainly do not support at this time, I would not want to see any planning system whereby the department was judge and jury. With that in mind, I think this is a very interesting question.
  The second reason why I support the noble Lord in raising this issue is that the planning system is already sufficiently opaque to the public. The system is not friendly to the public even in straightforward applications, even though local authorities may try to make it so. A planning application can be considered and determined by the local authority and then appealed, and it can then be sent to an inspector who makes a different decision which is called in by the Secretary of State. The public have to come to grips with the system, and they often know how it works.
  Part of that system will be changed by the Bill currently being considered by your Lordships' House. As the noble Lord has pointed out, there is a parallel system which could further confuse the issue. On an issue as contentious as power generation, I wonder
  GC 186
  whether the Government think it appropriate to have this parallel system. I must re-emphasise how grateful I am to the noble Lord for raising the issue.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I congratulate my noble friend for discovering this point and raising it today. I say to the noble Baroness. Lady Miller—who said she thought that she might have missed it—that this Lady Miller most definitely would have missed it if it had not been raised by my noble friend. The Minister will undoubtedly have had the benefit of all the brains of the officials behind him who have been looking into the town and country planning legislation. No doubt he will present us with an answer today, but whether it will be the definitive answer that will make my noble friend happy is another matter. We shall listen with interest to his reply on this very interesting and important point.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the Minister replies to this interesting debate, will he tell us whether he is absolutely convinced that, in this respect, he is right to certify that the Bill is in accordance with the convention on human rights? I seem to remember that one of the great upsets in the whole issue of human rights occurred in Guernsey, I think, on a planning issue; it concerned someone in Guernsey wearing several hats at once. It is difficult to see how a certificate can stand up for an area that does not want a development. In the circumstances proposed here, I begin to see why Scotland does not want to join this particular club. I do not think that it applies in Scotland.
  Lord Whitty: The noble Lord has raised some very interesting points. However, taken in parallel with the Bill presently being discussed in the Chamber, Clause 150 is intended to bring more into line the changes which we are introducing into planning generally with those in this Bill as regards energy projects. The noble Lord says that the clauses are effectively the same. The changes that we are introducing are creating a system that is more coherent and more streamlined in relation to major energy projects. The usual complaint about energy projects is that the planning system takes far too long and not that it excludes people. We are therefore seeking to streamline the system in parallel with other major projects being dealt with by the other Bill.
  The noble Lord raises the question of whether we could have two different systems of planning. In fact, it is not entirely confined to these two systems of planning; there are different systems of planning for different aspects of the projects. Most road and railway transport projects are dealt with somewhat differently from more general planning structures. Of course, there have been times when the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment have been the same department, and times when they have not.
  The research of the noble Lord is impressive, in going back to 1962, when probably the reference to a Minister meant something different than it would

  GC 187
  now, given the current structure of the departments. The noble Baroness is correct in saying that the archivists in the DTI have material on the matter that goes hack for some time. The important role of central government with regard to energy has been recognised for a very long time. I am glad to short-circuit the weekend researches of the noble Lord, as they could have gone on for some considerable time. I am informed that that involvement in overhead lines has been going on since 1899, for example, and in power stations since 1909. I hope that I have saved him some work there.
  We have a separate system, which has recognised the importance of energy supply for that long. Since that early period, the industry has been municipalised, privatised, nationalised and re-privatised. I do not see that there is necessarily an argument for departing from the system at this point because we are now dealing with a privatised system. Nor do I believe that it is conclusive to say that there is a conflict of interest in relation to the DTI's role, because the issue is dealt with in the same way as it was for transport projects under part of the DETR. We had to ring-fence the planning dimension, and the same applies to the DTI in energy matters.
  Here I can refer, legally speaking, to the judgment in the Alconbury case, when transport and environment were under the same ministry. In that case, the House of Lords delivered a judgment in May 2001 that there was nothing wrong with the Secretary of State in that situation being both policy-maker and decision taker. It is not necessary to go into all the details of the case, but that was more or less a parallel system to the one that applies now. In that sense, the compatibility of the legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights does not really apply.
  As for Scotland and the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, the situation in terms of special planning regimes for utilities is no different. The role of central government is performed by Scottish Ministers supported by the Scottish executive. That is referred to in Sections 36 and 37. There has not been any change in devolution in that respect; the latest change applies in England and Wales, but the basic system is similar in Scotland. That is not always a conclusive argument for retaining it in England and Wales. but I am not convinced by the tidy-minded solution suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who wants to bring all planning systems into a single structure. In any case, on the clause that we are debating, we are, if anything, moving in his direction by moving towards the same terms and towards precisely the same form of legislation for both a general planning structure and this structure in relation to major projects.
  I am not convinced by the arguments made by the noble Lord, but I hope that he will be convinced by mine. Whether the broader arguments are returned to in a separate context, the clause should nevertheless stand part.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Before the noble Lord replies, I have a question for the Minister.
  GC 188
  Is his parallel with major road projects a reasonable one? Major road projects are obviously public projects to be used by the public. Generating plants, as envisaged under this clause, will be developed by the private sector. Therefore, I cannot really see that the parallel is fair.
  Lord Whitty: There are two aspects to the matter. One is that the product of the energy will be used by the public in the same way that the energy is used by the public and in the same way that publicly provided roads are used by the public. Of course, we also have privately provided roads, such as the north Birmingham relief road, which are subject to the same planning procedures. However, I am addressing whether the DTI can be judge and jury in the case that we are discussing. That has been considered a problem in relation to transport provision, but in the Alconbury case your Lordships' Judicial Committee found that there was no fundamental objection to such a provision. I argue that the same applies in relation to DTI and energy projects.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My noble friend Lady Carnegy raised the question of whether or not the measure was compatible with the convention. I heard the Minister say that he believed that it was compatible with the convention. I wish to raise one small point in that regard. The Minister said that, once the Motion was tabled that Clause 150 should not stand part of the Bill, undoubtedly officials were busy consulting former Acts and so on. When considering whether the Bill was compatible with the convention, was consideration given to whether a body should be judge and jury in a case? I do not assume that one would even have thought of that when asked to consider whether the measure was compatible with the convention. My noble friend Lady Carnegy made a valuable point in that regard.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was speaking from a background of having been at a meeting last week in rural Perthshire at which enormous anxiety was expressed about a very large new transmission line for which planning permission is being sought. There is great public reaction against it, and particularly against the other subsidiary lines that would have to be installed for something like 500 windmills right down the backbone of rural Scotland. It seems to me that, when something such as this occurs, it is terribly important that the process should be seen to be absolutely fair to people. It should not look like dictatorship in any way at all. That was what was worrying me—public reaction. One uses the argument about the Court of Human Rights but I did not know about the case that the noble Lord mentioned, which is probably relevant. Public relations are important with regard to this whole issue. We all know that energy has to be provided. The public know that. However, it is one's own backyard that is then damaged.
  Lord Whitty: The question of compatibility with the convention is focused on what a Bill changes. What this Bill and the Bill currently under consideration in the Chamber change are some of the procedures for

  GC 189
  major projects under the relevant planning systems. The question of whether there is sufficient time and scope to object to and present cases through the planning system as envisaged by these new provisions has been judged on all legal advice to be compatible with the convention. Had the Alconbury case, to which I referred, gone the other way, it would have given us cause to raise the issue of the compatibility of the judge and jury issue that applies to existing legislation. However, it did not go the other way. Therefore, that issue was not addressed as noble Lords in their judicial capacity provided a judgment on it.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Will the Minister consider another example of why streamlining might produce a difficulty? Streamlining is often a suspicious word, I think—it means that things will be speeded up, often to the detriment of the public. It may be that inquiries have taken too long in the past but if they are streamlined to the point that they stop the public taking a full part, that is undesirable.
  The Government propose having several inspectors dealing with issues concurrently. Where a community chose to employ a lawyer to argue its case in front of an inspector or an expert—whether or not it was a lawyer—it would then have to have several people arguing the case concurrently in front of these inspectors, and that might cause a difficulty. At least in a planning inquiry where there is one inspector, one expert can be employed: it tends to be expensive for communities to employ such people. Have the Government considered that community representation will be somewhat undermined by this proposal?
  Lord Whitty: For major inquiries, even under the previous system, there is usually a pre-inquiry at which all the significant parties talk to the inspector and decide on the way in which the procedure will operate, marshalling evidence on how that is to be conducted for the convenience of everybody.
  I should have thought that if a single entity could have a number of parallel things going on at the same time, some of which were of interest and some of which were not, it would be likely to prove less expensive and time-consuming than a system which was effectively sequential, with everything taking place with the same inspector at the same time. If I was an objector to a major energy—
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 6.32 to 6.42 p.m.]
  Lord Whitty: I was about to conclude my remarks in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I felt that, for a community interest, it is probably more beneficial to conduct certain aspects of the system in parallel, rather than wait for a long inquiry which, like the Sizewell B inquiry, can last several years, through all of which a lawyer has to be retained. I therefore do not think there is any disadvantage in this respect to community
  GC 190
  groups and those with limited resources. I think that it will speed up the process while not diminishing the degree of engagement by all those with an interest who are rightly provided for in the planning process.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am particularly grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lady Carnegy, and to my own leading Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, for coming in and supporting me on this point. I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. I think that it has been worth having the discussion.
  I said that this was a probing debate. I entirely accept that simply saying that the clause should not stand part of the Bill would not have met the case I sought to argue. Now that I know that the issue goes back to 1899 in respect of power lines and to 1909 in respect of power stations, I am not surprised that I had some difficulty in trying to find my way through the legislative jungle. However, the fact that the history of this goes back that far is not a reason for not changing it. When one looks at the changes that have had to be made in business procedures and practices and across the whole spectrum of commercial life to try to make the system more ethical and more understandable so that it works properly in the interests of the community and shareholders and so on, it becomes apparent that this is a quite small issue. I have to accept that if there was a judgment on the Alconbury case that specifically recognised that it was not inappropriate for a government department to be both promoter and judge in a case, it rather weakens my argument. However, even that is not necessarily a reason why we should not change.
  I return to one point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. She was concerned about complications and inquiries becoming multiple inquiries and therefore perhaps causing representational problems for some members of the public or public groups. There are two sides to that equation. I believe that the Terminal 5 inquiry at Heathrow and even the Sizewell inquiry suffered from the same problem. Ultimately, what happened—certainly with regard to Terminal 5—was that some local authorities which were making representations ran out of funds because of the length of the inquiry. There is an urgent need to speed up the whole inquiry process. I completely support the Government in that.
  However, my amendment would not have attacked that issue. I was not seeking to amend the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has pointed out contains these accelerated procedures. The two Bills, as I illustrated, are running in precise parallel and therefore the accelerated procedures would still be there. But my view is that it would be ethically more straightforward if a Minister did not have to listen to all the representations that might give rise to the need for power stations. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, was right to mention what might have to happen in the nuclear field and how highly controversial that would be if and when it happened.

  GC 191
  The Minister in this one department will have the job, first, of sorting out the policy. He will then have to sort out the specific action. Then he will have to hold the inquiry because you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be one. The same man will have to pass judgment on the results of the inquiry and he will have to judge it against the question of national necessity. I feel sorry for the man who bears all those burdens. That is all I can say.
  I shall want to study a little more carefully precisely what the Minister said. I shall probably want to consider the Alconbury judgment, too, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.
  Clause 150 agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 132D:
  After Clause 150, insert the following new clause—
  "ASSISTANCE FOR AREAS WITH HIGH DISTRIBUTION COSTS
  (1) If it appears to the Secretary of State—

  (a) that the costs of distributing electricity within a particular area of Great Britain are significantly higher (when calculated on a per customer basis) than in other areas of Great Britain, and

  (b) that within that area there are at least 100,000 premises that are connected to the same distribution system,

  he may make an order under this section.
  (2) An order under this section is one that establishes a scheme which—

  (a) requires authorised transmitters to make a payment each year to authorised distributors distributing electricity in that area of Great Britain of such amount as may be determined in accordance with provision contained in the scheme; and

  (b) requires the charges imposed by the authorised transmitters on authorised suppliers to be adjusted in accordance with the scheme for the purpose of enabling the transmitters to make that payment.

  (3) An order under this section establishing a scheme in relation to the distribution of electricity within a particular area must specify the area.
  (4) For the purpose of facilitating the implementation of a scheme for which an order under this section provides, such an order may make such modifications as the Secretary of State considers appropriate of the conditions of the licences of authorised suppliers, of authorised transmitters and of authorised distributors.
  (5) For the purpose of carrying out the functions conferred on him by or under this section the Secretary of State may require—

  (a) an authorised supplier,

  (b) an authorised distributor, or

  (c) an authorised transmitter,

  to supply him, in a specified form and within a specified time, with information of a specified description.
  (6) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as he considers appropriate.
  (7) Subsection (6) may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the commencement of this section.
  (8) An order under this section is subject to the negative resolution procedure.
  (9) Where a scheme established under this section in relation to the distribution of electricity within a particular area is in force, no scheme shall be established under this section in relation to the distribution of electricity outside that area.
  (10) Where a scheme is established under this section, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to carry out a review of that scheme—

  (a) three years after its establishment; and

  (b) thereafter at three yearly intervals.

  (11) In section 25(8) of the 1989 Act (definitions relating to the provisions of that Act concerned with compliance orders), in the definition of "relevant requirement" at the end insert "or section (Assistance for areas with high distribution costs)(5) of the Energy Act 2004".
  (12) In this section—

  "authorised distributor" and "authorised supplier" have the same meanings as in Part 1 of the 1989 Act;

  "authorised transmitter" means a person authorised by a licence under section 6(1)(b) of that Act to participate in the transmission of electricity;

  "distributing", "distribution" and "distribution system" have the same meanings as in Part 1 of that Act;

  "licence" means a licence for the purposes of section 4 of that Act;

  "premises" has the same meaning as in Part 1 of that Act."

  The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 132D is to replace a licence condition known as "hydro benefit" in Scotland. This licence condition requires Scottish and Southern Energy's generation business to pay a sum of money to its distribution business in recognition of the fact that the cost of providing power to customers in the north of Scotland is considerably higher than elsewhere because of the terrain and remoteness.
  The hydro benefit licence condition needs to be replaced because Ofgem has received clear legal advice that it may be discriminatory under EC law—primarily because the burden falls on one company. It has therefore removed it from the licence given to Scottish and Southern Energy. SSE, however, has pledged to maintain the effects of the licence condition until the provisions of BETTA go live. Those have now been formalised in the price control mechanism. Unlike hydro benefit, the financial assistance proposed under that provision will not be recovered solely from a single company but from all suppliers. All suppliers will therefore be treated in the same way, and will all fund the payment via the transmission charges that they pay to the GB system operator.
  The amendment will have the same effect as the hydro benefit provisions, in that it will prevent consumers' bills in the north of Scotland incurring significant price rises that would otherwise result from the removal of the provisions. Initial analysis suggests that a medium-sized standard credit consumer's bill might increase by 10 per cent in the absence of hydro benefit, and the replacement would therefore also avoid an increase not only in bills but also in fuel poverty in the north of Scotland, where there is a very high proportion of households in fuel poverty. It is our intention to maintain the current level of hydro benefit, which was set at £39 million per annum last year. We shall consult on the order to give effect to that for the next six months, and it will therefore be in time for inclusion in the BETTA provisions.
  Finally, we are aware that for ease of reference it would be more appropriate to lay the provision as an amendment to the Electricity Act 1989 as opposed to a freestanding clause within the Energy Bill. We are also now aware that there should be a specific provision that would make it clear that the Secretary of State is not entitled to require the production of any document that a court could not require. That means that an amendment will be needed to bring the legislation into line with other information provisions in the 1989 Act. We shall have to come back to tidy that last element at Report stage. However, the main provision in this amendment will ensure that consumers in the north of Scotland do not miss out and that the burden is effectively borne by the system. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of the amendment. It was a little surprising that it took so long to appear, but that is not meant as a criticism because the Minister did announce that he would introduce an amendment with the effect of this amendment.
  There is no point in repeating what the Minister said. because we all understand the points that he made. The whole hydro benefit system was introduced by a Conservative government in 1957, and created in recognition of the higher distribution costs in remote highlands and islands. However, I have one question for the Minister. The amendment seems to be an attempt to replicate the social responsibilities of the Hydro-Electric Board—which is now called Scottish and Southern Energy. Will the Scottish Office—that is to say the taxpayer—pick up the bill now that the cross-subsidy has been forbidden? I am not quite sure whether the Minister said that now the system would pay or that all the people would contribute. I would be most interested if he could clarify that matter.
  To the extent that the amendment restores the position that the Conservatives created 47 years ago, we certainly do not oppose it.
  Lord Gray of Contin: I welcome the amendment. It is very important for those who live in the north of Scotland, and very important for the future of developing industries in the north of Scotland. The old north of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board had built-in provision in social clauses. Those all went when denationalisation came in, and I am not suggesting for one moment that they should have been reinstated. However, in this amendment I believe that the Government are realising the difficulties which exist in distant, remote areas. For 13 years I had the honour of representing the constituency of Ross and Cromarty, as it was then. Parts of that constituency were very remote, and the thought of having to provide a power supply to some of those places was horrific. Had provision not existed at that time for assistance to be given, many places there would not have had power.
  Therefore, I am very grateful to the Government for what they are doing in the Bill to ensure that the additional costs which occur in areas such as the
  GC 194
  Highlands of Scotland are appreciated and that the benefits will accrue accordingly. I thank the Government very much. I have never been slow to criticise them with regard to certain issues in the Bill and I have no doubt that I shall wish to criticise them about many more, but I appreciate what they have done in this instance.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I welcome this government amendment. If noble Lords are worried that the Government are being too friendly to northern Scotland, they can observe on page 7 of the Marshalled List that, under proposed subsection (10) of the new clause, the matter will be reviewed after three years and every three years thereafter so that, should circumstances change, it need not be a permanent arrangement.
  I believe I am right in saying that, at present, in the north of Scotland electricity is very expensive, even now, compared with most places. I know that my bill is absolutely terrifying. If the noble Lord had been in Scotland over the past week and had experienced the low temperatures, he would realise that that accounts for quite a lot of one's bill. Therefore, the amendment is helpful.
  I am glad that my noble friend pointed out that these are not social clauses. The arrangement comes within our present system and it is being continued in this way. We are very grateful to the Government for taking the trouble to introduce it in such a way that it will not be objected to by the European Commission.
  The Duke of Montrose: I do not want to delay the Committee but I have one question. Ofgem announced last month that it intended to end the hydro-benefit subsidy system in Scotland after it received legal advice that hydro benefit was probably discriminatory and contrary to EU law. I went back to Scottish and Southern Energy and asked whether it could tell me under which EU law it was found to be discriminatory. SSE was not terribly helpful. It said that it thought it might be something to do with the position on renewables, but I said that that seemed quite impossible. How would the Government manage to overcome the idea that it was probably discriminatory?
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I hesitate to intervene as a Sassenach in this debate, particularly as, when I finish, I suspect that I may have some Scots in kilts harrying me down the streets of London. However, I believe it is important to point out that the costs of the generating distribution industry are finite. The charges to the customers must meet those costs and earn a profit. Therefore, if we are to give some people a lower share of the real cost, someone else must pay the extra cost because it must be met. That is where I am in danger of offending the Scots.
  If the Minister tells me that the intention is to use the orders where appropriate to try to ensure that, as near as possible, the consumers all ultimately pay more or less the same price, that is one thing. I believe that that is probably the intention behind the scheme. But if he does not tell me that that is the intention, there may be

  GC 195
  many irate Englishmen complaining about the Whitty formula and comparing it with the Barnett formula, which always seems to have been slightly one-sided—to Englishmen, at any rate.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: Until the noble Lord's intervention, I was basking in the praise and gratitude of our Scottish colleagues. But of course there is an implication for consumers in Essex, as the noble Lord knows.
  The answer to the noble Baroness's question is that rather than one supplying company bearing the cost, all supplying companies will bear the cost. Presumably, all or most supplying companies will try and pass on as much of their costs to their ultimate consumers as they can. If it is all passed on, the increase in bills would be roughly 0.3 per cent if it were spread evenly, a small part of the total bill.
  To that extent, consumers elsewhere are supporting consumers in the north of Scotland, whose prices would otherwise be significantly higher. They are already high in most cases, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, says, and they would be higher were this benefit to be removed. The nationalised north of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board had the hydro benefit as part of its provisions. This was a replacement for that measure on privatisation as a licensing condition, because it could be held to discriminate against one company. That is the EU law point—once it is spread around all companies, there is no problem because we are not being discriminatory.
  While always bearing in mind the point of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I will sit down with the support of our Scottish colleagues and say that we are trying to maintain a position which the system had, in different ways, managed to deliver to consumers in the north of Scotland for the past 45 years. We have found a way round this which I think will be beneficial and will not be at too great a cost to everybody else.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the Minister sits down, let me say that I entirely agree with what he says. However, he has not said that the intention behind this is, within reason, to try and equalise the costs at the point of the consumer. Is that the intention?
  Lord Whitty: The point of competition policy and regulation is not entirely to equalise cost; it is, however, to provide the most cost-effective means by which to benefit the consumer. The cost to Scottish consumers is, and is likely to remain, higher than average, even after this measure is applied. That has always been the case, but the higher cost is partly offset.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Thank you.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 151 [Payments of sums raised by fossil fuel levy]
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 133:
  Page 116, line 22, after first "the" insert "Secretary of State or"
  The noble Baroness said: This group of amendments seeks to probe the Government on their intention with regard to the surpluses that are built up from the auctioning of income that the non-fossil purchasing agency carries out. Clause 141 contains some suggestions about what will happen in Scotland, leaving the rest of the UK in a very different position.
  Let me give noble Lords the background. When the Utilities Act 2000 was introduced, changes had to be made to the contracts which are let under the non-fossil fuel obligation. The new arrangements for the NFFO contracts in England and Wales provide that, first, the non-fossil purchasing agency pays generators the contract price for each kilowatt of power generated and, secondly, the non-fossil purchasing agency auctions the output of those contracts.
  At the moment, the NFPA receives more income from the auctions than it needs to pay generators and so a surplus of money is building up. A similar situation arises in Scotland with the Scottish renewables order contract in that a surplus pot of money is building up, although I understand that the details of the auction arrangements are slightly different.
  As I understand it, Clause 151 enables Scotland to act in a more desirable way than the rest of the UK. The difficulty with regard to the surplus that is building up in the rest of the UK is that no provision is made for it, save for that first £60 million. The first £60 million of the pot was covered by the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 which specified that that £60 million had to be spent on renewable energy projects. However, unless the Minister tells me differently, I understand that that is less than one year's worth of the build-up of such surpluses so the surplus will continue to build and the Energy Bill, as presently drafted, does not provide for the same purpose as it does in Scotland. In other words, that surplus should go into renewable energy projects. Perhaps the Minister would intimate whether my interpretation of the Bill is incorrect. However, if it is correct, I wonder why Scotland has the benefit of the surplus being spent on renewable energy projects and England does not. I beg to move.
  Lord Jenkin of Boding: I have a few words to say and then I shall ask a question. I find the argument advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, very intriguing. I certainly had not spotted that there is a difference between Scotland and England. I shall be interested to hear the response to that.
  I am sure that Ministers will recognise that there is a hole in the buy-out fund as a result of TXU and another company going into administration—it was some £23 million short. Due to the fossil fuel levy, a sum is building up and it was suggested that it should

  GC 197
  be used for renewable energy. There you have a system that requires the money to be used for renewable energy. Why can that fossil fuel money not be used to fill the hole in the buy-out fund? When the issue first arose, we were told that that could not possibly be done. My question is why not? It seems that there is a perfectly valid use for it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said, it does not appear that it is being put to any other use. In a sense it is a hangover from the earlier system, before we moved to the present system and the renewables obligation. It was intended to encourage renewable energy. That was the proposal of the previous government and it was effective so far as it went. Why can it not be used for the hole in the buy-out fund?
  Lord Triesman: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for tabling the amendment about the use of sums raised by the fossil fuel levy. As far as I can, I shall try to answer other questions that have arisen, including the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin's, question. I was trying not to make a mistake in saying that, but there is an apostrophe S. It is a silent apostrophe, but there are now best-selling books written on such matters.
  We appreciate what lies behind the amendment—it is a wish to promote renewable energy. We share that desire. However, we have already demonstrated that through our renewable energy policies and programmes and will continue to do so. We have only very recently legislated, through the Sustainable Energy Act, on the use of £60 million of the (England and Wales) fossil fuel levy surplus. Spending decisions will be decided in the 2004 spending review. The £60 million mainly for capital grants is intended to help drive forward renewables deployment and will be allocated over the next two financial years.
  Some of the funding will be used to support offshore wind developments. As we have tried to persuade noble Lords during previous discussion on the Bill, these have an extremely important role to play in working towards the achievement of the 10 per cent renewables electricity target by 2010 so we shall be getting real added value for renewables from this funding.
  I should like, if I may, to take a few moments to explain the Government's position more broadly. Clause 151 as proposed in the Government's Energy Bill allows Scottish Ministers to direct Ofgem to pay surplus Scottish fossil fuel levy moneys into the Scottish consolidated fund and to make provision in budget proposals to the Scottish Parliament that these sums are used to promote the use of renewable energy in Scotland.
  Similar powers were obtained by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in respect of the fossil fuel levy fund in England and Wales through recent legislation—the Sustainable Energy Act 2003. However, the provisions in the Sustainable Energy Act cover only £60 million rather than all the funds. That, of course, is at the heart of the noble Baroness's
  GC 198
  amendment. The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness would extend the provisions of Clause 151 to cover the total amount that might arise in both funds.
  The Scottish fossil fuel levy fund is based on a smaller number of contracts and is, in turn, of lower value overall than the England and Wales fund. The Scottish fund currently stands at just £3.8 million. I repeat the figures because the contrasts of magnitude are very significant for the purpose of the argument. I refer to £60 million in one case and £3.8 million in the other. It clearly would not make sense for there to be a limit on the amounts £3.8 million being a relatively small sum in these circumstances—that Scottish Ministers could direct to be used for renewables. I was asked why should there be a difference between Scotland and England and Wales in that regard. The answer concerns the sheer magnitude of the sums involved. Sub-division of the smaller sum would scarcely be likely to be effective.
  The England and Wales fund stands at around £112 million and there is now a £60 million limit on amounts that the Secretary of State can direct for use on renewables. I should like to point out that no decisions have been taken on the use of the remainder of the existing sums in the England and Wales levy fund apart from the need to keep a £30 million reserve. That is the only decision about the remaining balance that has been taken. There will be further additions to the fund from the future auction of NFFO ROCs. I understand that that is pronounced "noffo rocks". When I first read the term, I thought that it must be a heavy metal rock band, but it turns out to be much more benign than that. As I say, further additions to the fund from the future auction of NFFO ROCs are expected and consideration will be given to the use of future sums in the fossil fuel levy fund in due course.
  I hope I have demonstrated that we are putting the £60 million from the fossil fuel levy surplus for England and Wales to good use. However, while we understand completely the sentiment behind the proposition that has been made, we cannot accept the amendment in this form.
  The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, also asked why we should not use the Sustainable Energy Act to bail out the buy-out fund, as it would restore confidence and thus restore the ROC price to former levels. Any such loan would soon be repaid in terms of higher ROC prices. As I think was said before, the Government do not have any plans to make good the shortfall since the renewables obligation is a market-driven mechanism. Government intervention in this way would inevitably intervene in the free market in ROCs, which might well have an adverse impact on confidence in the longer term.
  There would also be issues concerning the precedent. In any event, our legal advice is that the provisions of the Sustainable Energy Act do not permit us to use it in this way. That may or may not be an answer from which noble Lords will take great comfort, but that is the answer. In the light of all the elements of my answer, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Byford: Before the noble Baroness does that, perhaps the Minister could answer a couple of questions. He said quite clearly that at the moment there is £60 million to be spent on renewable obligations but that the fund—if I am following the argument correctly, and I hope I am—currently stands at £112 million. Of that figure the Government have decided to put £30 million into reserve, which in my quick maths leaves £22 million spare before we have any money coming in from the option. I hope that my figures are followed through.
  The Minister said that some of this money would go towards helping the offshore wind farm development. How much of that £60 million is it anticipated will go for that? Where or what other sources will go towards that? He said quite clearly that it was for a capital grant over the next two years. One complaint I have had about this Bill all the way through is that it does not deal with energy per se, it deals with a very limited aspect of energy, and particularly it deals with regard to offshore wind farms on the renewables side. There are many other worthy examples and businesses trying to set themselves up to use waste products from which to extract renewable energy.
  We have talked before in Committee about the question of using tidal power. Perhaps this money can be used in a slightly more creative way to look at forms of renewables other than offshore wind farms. It would be a pity if it could not be used in that way. Wind farms are hugely costly as well. So I realise that the £60 million will soon get eaten up. But it would help, certainly from my point of view—I do not know about the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer—if we could have a little more clarity on where the money is going. Is it just in an overall general pot? It would be an opportunity missed if we could not use it in a slightly broader way. Having read this particular part of the Bill, I did not see it clearly identified.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, said. In fact he answered a different question from the one that I asked. He answered the question by saying why should not part of the £60 million that had gone into the Sustainable Energy Act be used for the hole in the buy-out fund. I understand his answer, but that was not what I asked. I asked why should not any of the surplus from the fossil fuel levy be used for this purpose temporarily—as he suggested—as a loan which would then be repaid. Working out the sums in my head, no doubt inaccurately, of the £112 million, he is putting £30 million to reserve. That takes one down to £82 million. He has £60 million for the Sustainable Energy Act. He is therefore left with £22 million. Does the Committee know what the sum of the hole in the buy-out fund is? It is just over £22 million, so he has the money to do it without drawing on any of the £60 million at all.
  As the Minister rightly said, the failure to pay on the part of one of the large contributors has undermined confidence in the renewables obligation certificates. As that has resulted in a fall in the value of the RO
  GC 200
  certificates and a diminution of the incentive that the system is intended to offer—to produce more renewable energy—I should have thought that there was more to be said for the proposition of using the money to make a loan to help the fund out than the Minister perhaps allowed. Perhaps we might reflect on that.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: While the Minister is composing his reply and doing the maths, it would help me to decide on the tone of my withdrawal of my amendment if he would say what he meant by the phrase that the Government could not accept the amendment in this form. Does he mean that if the amendment was in another form, it would be acceptable, or did he mean that the amendment would be unacceptable in any form?
  Lord Triesman: Let me start by telling noble Lords that all of them have done the maths right and that it would have been perfect arithmetic if I had read them the right figure. I apologise—what can I say? I misread it, and when I tell noble Lords the right figure they will feel that their arguments are all the stronger rather than weaker. It was not £112 million but £122 million, so there was an extra £10 million that noble Lords could have pleaded in aid. I thought that I had better make a clean breast of that immediately.
  I shall deal with the issues, even with the addition of the £10 million, which noble Lords will be delighted that I have discovered in addition to the sums that they worked out. First, it might be possible to discover what proportion of the £60 million has gone in capital grants, where it is intended to go. I was going to say that noble Lords will understand that I do not have the exact figures in front of me, but I am now briefed that, roughly speaking, half of that £60 million will be used on offshore wind capital projects. That is at least the beginning of an indicative figure. It may be that a more precise figure is available, but that is roughly half of it. I cannot tell noble Lords at this moment how the remaining half, approximately, will be deployed, but it is all in the service of renewables, which was the explicit intention of the provision. The allocation of much of the rest will be decided in the coming months; those decisions are not far away.
  Secondly, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that my point was not that the money that might be used to repair the hole in the buy-out fund should come from the £60 million, and I apologise if I spoke with insufficient accuracy. I had not intended to suggest that. I was referring to the more complete sum overall. The burden of my argument was that none the less, in a market-driven mechanism, any intervention by the state in the replacement of sums inevitably has some impact on the operation of such a market. Some might very well argue that the impact could be to restore confidence, while others might argue that one could never work out the proper way in which to fix the prices that would operate in circumstances in which trading was taking place normally and without that intervention. The case that the Government are putting forward in Grand Committee today is the latter of those cases—that it would be a distortion. In

  GC 201
  any case. I hope that I have clarified that the money would come not from the £60 million but from the remaining sum.
  I understand the argument that it is important to know how the sums would be spent overall. None the less, I do not think that it would be possible to go further than to repeat the point that £30 million will be held as a reserve and that decisions on the rest have not yet been taken.
  I did not want to give the impression that an amendment in a different form would find its way into the Bill at Report. My point was that there is a huge amount of sympathy with the concept of trying to utilise funds to make sure that the renewables commitment is most effectively deployed. But at this stage, the expenditure of more than the sums I have referred to is not contemplated.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for trying to break down my question on where the money was going. However, I want to press him further; if he is not able to answer me this afternoon, I am quite happy about that.
  There is £30 million left that can be made available towards renewable projects. My question is twofold: is that knowledge in the public domain and, if it is, can individual companies make an approach? If so, who do they approach and how do they go about it? Or do the Government want to keep the money as a reserve, to be used at some time in the future? There are quite a few companies which are trying to convert chicken waste into heat, for example, and many other projects are being carried out. This is a question of waste that could be used to be of benefit in the broader sense. Such projects often struggle because of not having enough funding to make them financially viable, and if there are moneys available elsewhere, that knowledge should be in the common domain. I wonder whether it is.
  Lord Triesman: All I can say at this stage is that I have provided the figures and they are now a matter of record, so in that sense they are in the public domain.
  GC 202
  I have also said that at this point, there is no decision on the use of the remaining sums. I cannot really speculate about what anybody in the industry might do on having had the sums set out this afternoon. All I can say is that, at present, decisions have not been taken.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who have spoken in this debate. I thank the Minister for his reply, although naturally I am disappointed at his explanation I hat the Government could not accept the amendment in this form and for expressing the view that they were unlikely to accept it in any form.
  As we interpret the Minister's words, anything above £60 million will probably simply be reabsorbed by the Treasury. Given the Government's other stated priority of hitting the Kyoto targets, it is a great shame when they know that renewable energy projects will have to be front-loaded in terms of funding; while they are at the development stage, such projects need more money. Some mechanism—and I accept that my amendment may not provide the right one—that frees up the surpluses that develop is extremely important.
  So although I accept that the Scottish situation is very different for the reasons which the Minister outlined, I will want to return to the issue on Report to explore the extent of the shortfall in applications for renewable energy projects. I shall research the issue in the mean time, to see whether the targets which the Government have met could be better met if the funding were more generous. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 134 to 141 not moved.]
  Clause 151 agreed to.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: This might be regarded as an exceedingly convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until 3.30 p.m. tomorrow.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday 2 March at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eight o'clock.

  Afghanistan: Badakhshan
  Afghanistan: Badakhshan
  Higher Education: Disabled Students
  Higher Education: Disabled Students
  Universities: Honours Degrees
  Universities: Honours Degrees
  NHS: Nurses
  NHS: Nurses
  Temik
  Temik
  Organ Donation
  Organ Donation
  FTSE 100 Companies
  FTSE 100 Companies
  Ofcom: Pornographic and Paedophilic Images
  Ofcom: Pornographic and Paedophilic Images
  House of Lords: Ministerial Answers
  House of Lords: Ministerial Answers
  Crystal Palace National Sports Centre
  Crystal Palace National Sports Centre
  Railways: Salisbury to Yeovil Line
  Railways: Salisbury to Yeovil Line
  Regulations: Cost to Business
  Regulations: Cost to Business

  Northern Ireland: Recent Developments
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  On Friday 20 February the Police Service of Northern Ireland made a number of arrests in connection with an alleged assault and abduction. The case is sub judice.

  Four people now face serious charges, including grievous bodily harm, possession of articles likely to be of use to terrorists and unlawful imprisonment. The PSNI are following a number of very definite evidential lines, including video material and the items, clothing and other forensic material recovered at the scene. The Chief Constable of the PSNI has made clear to me that he is satisfied that there was Provisional IRA involvement in the incident.

  These events are a matter of serious concern. As far as the overall situation is concerned, my assessment of the various paramilitary organisations' ceasefires, in the light of information I have received, remains unchanged. But all the indications are that there has been a serious breach of the requirement set out by the British and Irish Governments in paragraph 13 of the Joint Declaration for an end to all forms of paramilitary activity.

  Such behaviour is wholly unacceptable. As the Government have repeatedly made clear, parties cannot be half-in, half-out of the democratic process. All paramilitary activity must stop.

  These developments have inevitably had a serious impact on this week's discussions with the Northern Ireland political parties within the review of the operation of the Belfast agreement. At those meetings, we listened carefully to the views of the parties and, in particular, to their concerns about the implications of these events for the establishment of the trust and confidence required to achieve a successful outcome to the review and to restore devolved government in Northern Ireland.

  Both Governments are now asking the Independent Monitoring Commission, which was established in January, to examine Friday's incident in the context of the preparation of its first report on paramilitary activity. We have also asked the commission to bring that report forward from July to May. The report is expected to take account of all paramilitary incidents and activities within its remit since the commission's establishment. The commission is obliged by law not to do anything in carrying out its functions that might have a prejudicial effect on any legal proceedings.

  Both the British and Irish Governments are very clear that the achievement of a sustainable basis for
  WS 42
  political progress in Northern Ireland requires a full and permanent cessation of all paramilitary activity. As part of the wider agenda of the review, it is vital that we intensify engagement with the parties on this core issue, and we envisage that next week there will be a significant focus on it.

  Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order: Review
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  A review of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and the accompanying codes of practice is being undertaken by officials in the Northern Ireland Office.

  The review, which aims to bring the existing PACE legislation and the codes of practice in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales, will adopt much of the new or amended legislation and revisions to the codes of practice introduced by the Home Office as a result of their fundamental review of PACE in 2002.

  It is my intention to issue a draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order and associated codes of practice for consultation in autumn 2004 with the aim of them becoming operational by summer 2005.

  Council of Europe and Western European Union: Information Bulletin
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Prime Minister has placed in the Library today the latest information bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union covering the period November 2002 to October 2003.

  Afghanistan Pledge
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  Afghanistan remains a high priority for the Government. A lot has been achieved during the past two years. Around 3 million refugees have been helped to return to Afghanistan. Improvements have been made in education, with more than 4 million children back at school. Thirty seven per cent of pupils are now girls, up from 5 per cent in 2001. Twelve million children have been immunized against polio and 16 million against measles since 2002, saving 30,000 lives. Women are increasingly taking part in politics and the

  WS 43
  new constitution guarantees women 25 per cent of seats at the new parliament and equal rights and duties before the law. But there are still challenges ahead.

  As part of the UK's continuing commitment to Afghanistan I will be announcing, at the donor conference taking place in Berlin on 31 March and 1 April an increase in our assistance to at least £500 million over five years. This represents an increase of 150 per cent on our original commitment for the reconstruction of Afghanistan made in Tokyo in January 2002 to provide £200 million over these five years (the financial years 2002–03 to 2006–07). So far we have provided £110.5 million of this. This new pledge will include at least £75 million a year for reconstruction, plus assistance for counter-narcotics and conflict prevention.

  One of the major challenges Afghanistan faces is security, particularly in the south and east of the country, and the need to tackle the drugs trade. The UK is working to support the Afghan police and helping to build a new Afghan national army. We are also assisting with the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former combatants. Our new financial commitment will help to address all these issues.

  Falkland Islands: Airlinks
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  I made a Statement to this House on 19 January on airlinks between the Falklands and Argentina (Official Report col.WS39). I would like to report on developments since then.

  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Rammell) travelled to Argentina on 16 to 17 February on a preplanned bilateral visit. He held talks on a wide range of international, regional and bilateral issues. The question of airlinks featured in talks with the Argentine Foreign Minister, Dr Rafael Bielsa. The talks were frank and constructive and they made some progress. Some proposals were discussed which they each agreed to look at further. These proposals primarily focussed on temporary arrangements for charter flights for 2004. Mr Rammell made clear that any arrangements would need to be acceptable to the Falkland Islanders.

  Regrettably, shortly following the visit, an article appeared in an Argentine newspaper, giving details of the talks and wrongly asserting that a "deal" on airlinks had been agreed. As Mr Rammell has indicated, this was not the case.

  Mr Rammell spoke subsequently to Falkland Councillors. They concluded that the proposals for temporary arrangements did not meet their concerns. However, they agreed that we should continue to discuss the issue with the Argentine Government with a view to securing a permanent solution to the question of charter flights rather than having further temporary arrangements.
  WS 44
  We are now taking this forward with the Argentine Government, with the full agreement of councillors. I will keep the House informed of progress.

  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  The forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union is as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Event

  March

  1–2

  Cork

  ASEM Finance Deputies' Meeting

  2

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  3

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  3

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  4–6

  Co. Clare

  Youth Ministerial Conference

  4–5

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  8

  Brussels

  Meeting of Eurogroup

  8–9

  Ankara

  EU Ministerial Troika with Turkey

  8–9

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  9

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  10

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  10

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  11

  Dublin

  EU/Russia Ministerial Meeting (Troika)

  12

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  17

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  18

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  18

  Ottawa

  EU Canada Summit (Troika)

  18–19

  Dublin

  OECD Ministers Conference

  19

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  22

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  24

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  24

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  24–25

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee

  25–26

  Brussels

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  30

  Dublin

  EU/Ukraine Ministerial Meeting (Troika)

  30

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  31

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  April

  2

  Punchestown

  Meeting of Eurogroup

  2–3

  Punchestown

  ECOFIN

  7–8

  Co. Wicklow

  Ministerial Conference on Communicating Europe

  16–17

  Tullamore

  GYMNICH

  17

  Co. Kildare

  ASEM Foreign Ministers Meeting

  26–27

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  26–27

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  27

  Luxembourg

  EU/Russia Permanent Partnership Council (Troika?)

  29–30

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee

  29–30

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  WS 45

  Date

  Location

  Event

  May

  6–7

  Dublin

  EuroMed Foreign Ministers

  7

  Limerick

  Meeting of Ministers with responsibility for Equality

  9–11

  Killarney

  Agriculture Informal Ministerial Meeting

  10

  Brussels

  Meeting of Eurogroup

  11

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  11–12

  Cork

  Health Ministers Consultative Meeting

  14–16

  Waterford

  Informal Meeting of EU Environment Ministers

  17–18

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  19–20

  Offaly

  Informal Budget Committee

  21

  Moscow

  EU/Russia Summit (Troika)

  23–25

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee

  24–25

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  25–27

  Co. Galway

  Conference on Islands and Territorial cohesion—Meeting New Challenges

  27–28

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

  27–31

  Dublin

  Ministers and Directors General of Public Administration

  28

  Guadalajara

  EU-Latin America/Caribbean Summit

  June

  1–2

  Luxembourg

  Health Council

  1

  Dublin

  Development Ministers' Meeting

  1

  Luxembourg

  Meeting of Eurogroup

  2

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  8

  Luxembourg

  Justice & Home Affairs Council Meeting

  10–11

  Luxembourg

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  14–15

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  17–18

  Brussels

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  21–22

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  21–22

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee

  28–29

  Luxembourg

  Council Meeting of EU Environment Ministers

  July

  1

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  2–3

  Maastricht

  Competitiveness (Informal)

  7

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  7–8

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  8

  tbc

  EU-Ukraine Summit

  8–10

  Maastricht

  Social Policy (Informal)

  9–10

  Amsterdam

  Transport (Informal)

  12–13

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  12–14

  Rotterdam

  Informal Ministerial Education Youth and Culture

  14

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  15

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  16–18

  Maastricht

  Environment (Informal)

  19

  Brussels

  JHA Council

  19

  Brussels

  Agricultural and Fisheries Council

  22

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  23

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  August

  No meetings planned

  Reserve Forces Call-out Order
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  A new call-out order has been made under Section 56 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 so that Reservists may continue to be called out to support operations in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The order will take effect from 1 March 2004, the date the previous order expires. There are no plans to call out Reservists compulsorily under this order as it is expected that the small numbers needed will be met through volunteers for service in those countries.

  British Forces in the Gulf: Free Packet Service
  Lord Bach
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  On 17 April 2003, with the generous support of the Royal Mail Group, the Ministry of Defence introduced a free postal service to enable families to post packets up to 2 kg free of charge to BFPO addresses in the Gulf. The provision of a free packet service recognised the difficult conditions personnel were operating in and that it was not possible to provide the full spectrum of welfare support normally available to personnel on operations. While southern Iraq is not yet a benign environment, the level of welfare support and the facilities available on Operation TELIC are now comparable to those provided in other operational theatres.

  It has therefore been decided that from 8 April 2004 with the handover of 20 Armoured Brigade to 1 Mechanised Brigade this free service will cease. This date should allow for any Easter gifts to be sent under the free service.

  In common with other operations, personnel in Iraq are provided with free forces air letters and their electronic counterparts ("Blueys" and "eblueys") in addition to free Internet access and free 20-minute phone calls each week. Families may also send packets up to 2 kg in weight to personnel in the Gulf at a concessionary rate—the equivalent of the UK inland first class postal rate. The NAAFI/Expeditionary Forces Institute also sells through its outlets in theatre many of the small consumable items that families were previously sending to personnel and this has lead to a significant decline in the demand for the free packet service.

  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
  WS 47
  London's bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games is focused on the Olympic Park in the lower Lea Valley. The London Development Agency submitted an outline planning application for the park and four ancillary applications to the Joint Planning Authorities Team (representing Newham, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest London boroughs) on 30 January 2004. Decisions on these, and any subsequent applications, are matters for the local authorities concerned. However, it is possible that decisions in relation to these applications could fall to be determined by me as First Secretary of State (either on appeal or if applications were to be called in). I and other Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have other policy responsibilities, including the delivery of development and regeneration in the Thames Gateway and the role that the London Olympics bid might play in achieving these objectives. In order to ensure that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Guidance on Propriety Issues in the Handling of Planning Casework is followed, I have decided that any planning decisions arising for the First Secretary of State in respect of development related to the Olympics bid will be dealt with by my honourable friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford. She will not be involved in any other matters relating to the Olympics bid.

  Civil Defence Grant
  Lord Bassam of Brighton
  My right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  The aggregate of civil defence grants to be made for the financial year 2004–05 is £19,038,000. £100,000 will be retained as discretionary grant for special projects and special events deemed of benefit to the wider civil protection community in England and Wales. The remaining £18,938,000 will be allocated to individual authorities as set out below.

  Local Authority

  Grant Allocation 2004–05 (£)

  Anglesey/Ynys Mon

  61,342

  Barking & Dagenham

  75,969

  Barnet

  80,694

  Barnsley

  76,076

  Bath & North East Somerset

  90,011

  Bedfordshire

  136,511

  Bexley

  78,758

  Birmingham

  187,380

  Blackburn with Darwen

  70,658

  Blackpool

  66,662

  Blaenau Gwent

  63,083

  Bolton

  82,674

  Bournemouth

  70,122

  Bracknell Forest

  63,899

  Bradford

  125,756

  Brent

  86,592

  Bridgend

  68,323

  Brighton & Hove

  81,172

  Bristol

  98,486

  Bromley

  84,980

  Buckinghamshire

  200,557

  Bury

  71,195

  Caerphilly

  73,088

  Calderdale

  74,574

  WS 48

  Local Authority

  Grant Allocation 2004–05 (£)

  Cambridgeshire

  163,057

  Camden

  84,175

  Cardiff

  87,322

  Carmarthenshire

  73,858

  Ceredigion

  64,143

  Cheshire

  189,969

  Conwy

  64,811

  Cornwall

  189,279

  Corporation of London

  60,145

  Coventry

  77,776

  Croydon

  90,666

  Cumbria

  216,116

  Darlington

  63,899

  Denbighshire

  71,434

  Derby

  76,503

  Derbyshire

  220,459

  Devon

  217,294

  Doncaster

  85,516

  Dorset

  175,886

  Dudley

  82,908

  Durham

  213,601

  Ealing

  90,344

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  72,166

  East Sussex

  208,288

  Enfield

  88,198

  Essex

  315,112

  Flintshire

  77,741

  Gateshead

  79,140

  Gloucestershire

  189,960

  Greater Manchester FCDA

  64,060

  Greenwich

  86,482

  Gwynedd

  67,698

  Hackney

  88,145

  Hatton

  68,137

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  76,719

  Hampshire

  298,996

  Haringey

  85,624

  Harrow

  65,726

  Hartlepool

  64,650

  Havering

  77,685

  Herefordshire

  70,229

  Hertfordshire

  310,886

  Hillingdon

  81,386

  Hounslow

  80,742

  Hull (Kingston upon Hull)

  72,265

  Isle of Wight

  72,230

  Isles of Scilly

  53,708

  Islington

  83,424

  Kensington and Chelsea

  74,788

  Kent

  339,586

  Kingston upon Thames

  67,654

  Kirklees

  95,431

  Knowsley

  74,359

  Lambeth

  87,789

  Lancashire

  315,233

  Leeds

  172,987

  Leicester

  88,896

  Leicestershire

  192,957

  Lewisham

  83,978

  Lincolnshire

  212,793

  Liverpool

  97,648

  London FEPA

  151,825

  Luton

  59,894

  Manchester

  147,667

  Medway

  81,547

  Merseyside FCDA

  73,332

  Merthyr Tydfil

  60,998

  Merton

  72,053

  Middlesbrough

  71,355

  Milton Keynes

  81,404

  Monmouthshire

  62,154

  Neath Port Talbot

  70,259

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  102,823

  Newham

  88,226

  WS 49

  Local Authority

  Grant Allocation 2004–05 (£)

  Newport

  68,616

  Norfolk

  276,813

  North East Lincolnshire

  71,624

  North Lincolnshire

  69,532

  North Somerset

  71,248

  North Tyneside

  74,091

  North Yorkshire

  244,523

  Northamptonshire

  239,260

  Northumberland

  188,122

  Nottingham

  86,321

  Nottinghamshire

  210,927

  Oldham

  79,294

  Oxfordshire

  202,459

  Pembrokeshire

  66,735

  Peterborough

  72,214

  Plymouth

  81,708

  Poole

  66,635

  Portsmouth

  74,467

  Powys

  85,886

  Reading

  67,386

  Redbridge

  82,566

  Redcar and Cleveland

  69,693

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  82,319

  Richmond upon Thames

  69,424

  Rochdale

  77,310

  Rotherham

  81,654

  Rutland

  56,443

  Salford

  72,386

  Sandwell

  88,413

  Sefton

  84,015

  Sheffield

  96,386

  Shropshire

  153,834

  Slough

  68,566

  Solihull

  73,716

  Somerset

  164,359

  South Gloucestershire

  76,183

  South Tyneside

  71,516

  South Yorkshire FCDA

  84,356

  Southampton

  77,470

  Southend

  71,966

  Southwark

  77,343

  St Helens

  73,333

  Staffordshire

  226,842

  Stockport

  79,992

  Stockton-on-Tees

  73,877

  Stoke-on-Trent

  74,413

  Suffolk

  221,786

  Sunderland

  101,107

  Surrey

  297,388

  Sutton

  73,126

  Swansea

  78,933

  WS 50

  Local Authority

  Grant Allocation 2004–05 (£)

  Swindon

  71,355

  Tameside

  77,310

  Telford and Wrekin

  72,385

  Thurrock

  68,666

  Torbay

  67,440

  Torfaen

  64,876

  Tower Hamlets

  93,509

  Trafford

  75,754

  Tyne & Wear FCDA

  34,892

  Vale of Glamorgan

  72,385

  Wakefield

  86,667

  Walsall

  83,639

  Waltham Forest

  83,532

  Wandsworth

  79,155

  Warrington

  72,804

  Warwickshire

  181,722

  West Berkshire

  67,815

  West Midlands FCDA

  60,386

  West Sussex

  225,386

  West Yorkshire FCDA

  61,593

  Westminster

  86,804

  Wigan

  84,497

  Wiltshire

  194,786

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  66,796

  Wirral

  89,861

  Wokingham

  66,525

  Wolverhampton

  82,030

  Worcestershire

  186,835

  Wrexham

  72,926

  York

  72,220

  To determine the individual allocations the following formula was adopted:

  Each authority received £53,000. Each county council received £12,000 in respect of each shire district within the authority's boundaries. These flat-rate payments accounted for approximately 65 per cent of the aggregate grant in recognition of the fact that every authority, regardless of size and population, would incur similar unavoidable costs in conducting the basic civil protection function.

  The remaining 35 per cent of the aggregate grant was distributed according to the Bellwin threshold, using population size as a proxy for the scale of the civil protection that authorities need to undertake.

  This formula is retained by agreement with the Local Government Association.