Sitting of 10 March 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—
  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Housing (Dorset)
    Jim Knight: What measures he is taking to increase the supply of affordable housing in Dorset. [159902]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): The Department has allocated £188 million to be invested in the south-west region over the next two financial years to provide over 6,000 new affordable homes in line with the recommendations of the South West regional housing board.
    Jim Knight: I thank the Minister for her reply, and very much welcome that new investment in housing in my region. I look forward to learning what proportion is to be spent in Dorset, particularly as it has the highest ratio of wages to average house prices anywhere outside London. I should like to know how negotiations are going with the Department of Health over extra care housing in my constituency, particularly the Westhaven development, as it is important to provide affordable housing to rent, with extra care for elderly and vulnerable people.
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right, and I am aware of the pressures that his constituency faces. The need for affordable housing covers a wide range of supported housing needs. The amount of supported housing across the country has increased from 100,000 to 250,000 units in the past three years, and I shall certainly look closely at the proposals for his constituency.
    Mr. David Curry: In her research into the housing situation in Dorset has the Minister studied the report of the Halifax building society on first-time buyers? Does she agree that eight out of 10 towns are now unaffordable for first-time buyers?
    Yvette Cooper: There are certainly housing market pressures across the country. However, the right hon.
    1504
    Gentleman's party wants to cut housing investment by £400 million and extend the right to buy to housing associations, although they do not want it. His proposals would therefore cut the supply of affordable housing and would not assist in reducing the pressures on the housing market.
    Mr. Curry: So what are the Government going to do about the crisis of affordability that is spreading out from London like a stain and has resulted in fewer first-time buyers than ever before? In the south-west, for example, the average house price for first-time buyers is £123,000, and the problem is compounded by the perversity of stamp duty. Are the Government going to face up to their responsibilities or will they simply ignore the growing crisis?
    Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman should face up to the failure of his sums. He is quite right that we need more access to affordable housing. We are increasing investment in affordable housing, and have doubled the levels that we inherited from the Conservatives. We have also increased investment to deal with the backlog of repairs that we inherited from the Conservatives, and commissioned the Barker review to look at the long-term issues surrounding housing supply. We have set out a series of proposals to address the problem, but the right hon. Gentleman's proposals involve cut after cut in the housing supply and affordable housing. Has he talked to the shadow Chancellor about any of that?
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: What advice would the Minister give a couple in my Dorset constituency who live in unsuitable social housing? The husband earns £18,000 as a qualified social worker and they have no hope of a transfer for at least five years. What can they do?
    Yvette Cooper: I obviously cannot comment on the individual case raised by the hon. Lady, but we recognise that there are specific problems facing key workers, which is why we are investing £1 billion in support for them and why the South West regional housing board has prioritised such support. We need to improve the standard of existing social housing, which is why we have made 1 million more homes decent since 1997. We must look at the supply of existing homes as well as the need for new housing.

    Water Supplies (Sussex and Kent)
    Norman Baker: What recent assessment he has made for planning purposes of the adequacy of water supplies in Sussex and Kent. [159903]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): We are working with the water industry and the Environment Agency both to ensure that growth areas have the necessary water infrastructure and to improve the management and conservation of existing water resources. In addition, the Environment Agency is undertaking work for the South East England regional assembly on water resources across the south-east

    1505
    region that will inform the review of regional planning guidance currently being considered by the regional assembly.
    Norman Baker: When the Deputy Prime Minister announced £22 million of pump-priming for 2,000 new houses in the south-east yesterday, was he aware that pressure on water resources there is so enormous that South East Water, my local water company, is applying for a desalination plant in my constituency? Is he also aware that his regional policies have led to thousands of houses being earmarked for demolition in the north while more housing is being built on scarce greenfield sites in the south-east?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House is aware of the difficulties involving water shortages in the south-east. It is often said that extra housing will increase those difficulties. We have spent a considerable amount of time on the problem. In 1997, I set up the water conference, which reduced leakages by 20 per cent., saving as much water as that of 6 million households. That was a considerable saving, but we had to go further. Initially, we called on the Environment Agency and the regional council to consider shortages and deficits over a 25-year period to ensure that the regional spatial plans take account of the availability of water in view of the new developments in housing. We expect that report shortly.

    Social Housing
    Mr. John Denham: What plans he has to allow tenants of social housing to share in the capital value of their homes. [159904]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the Government asked the home ownership taskforce to consider ways of helping social tenants into home ownership. The taskforce's recommendations include introducing a form of equity loans or bonds as an alternative to the right to buy and the right to acquire and allowing all social tenants to buy their rented home on a shared ownership basis. The Government are considering the taskforce's report and will respond shortly.
    Mr. Denham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. Does he share my concern at the division that is opening up, which is particularly marked in the south-east of England, between families who now own considerable assets because of the rise in the price of their homes and those in social rented housing who do not have any share in the increased value of their homes? May I urge my right hon. Friend to complete his consideration of the proposals as swiftly as possible in order to introduce practical legislation to address the issue?
    Keith Hill: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. As 70 per cent. of our population enjoy home ownership, it is perfectly reasonable to aspire to that. We recognise, however, that total home ownership is likely to be out of the reach of many social tenants. That is why we are examining with a due sense of urgency several options that will enable tenants and public
    1506
    landlords to share in property values, thereby giving people a stake in their own homes and contributing to the creation of mixed-tenure sustainable communities.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Given today's earnings, what is the Government's definition of affordable housing?
    Keith Hill: The Government's definition of affordable housing is housing that becomes available on a large scale to those who are in need of it. That is why, in the period since 1997, we have assisted in the provision of nearly 250,000 affordable homes.
    Geraldine Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on shared ownership, because it is important for people to have a stake in the ownership of their homes. Will he ensure that English Partnerships, which, along with Lancashire city council, has put a great deal of money into Morecambe, seriously considers the possibility of shared ownership schemes that will help a large number of my constituents get on to the housing ladder?
    Keith Hill: I am delighted with the progress that English Partnerships is making in my hon. Friend's constituency. English Partnerships is working with the Housing Corporation to evolve programmes for effective social housing in all its projects.

    Regional Government
    Joyce Quin: If he will make a further statement on his Department's work on preparing for the referendum on regional government in the north-east. [159905]
    The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We are very conscious of the importance of providing information to the public on the implications of our regional government proposals. To that end, we are holding hearings throughout the three northern regions, including the north-east, to explain the role and responsibilities of elected regional assemblies and to listen to views from the public about the powers of the assemblies. We are committed to providing further information, including an explanatory leaflet that will be sent to every household before the referendums in the autumn.
    Our current plans, which are dependent on receipt of reports from the boundary committee, are to lay orders before Parliament before the summer recess to enable referendums to be held this autumn. We also aim to publish a draft regional assemblies Bill this July.
    Joyce Quin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about the public hearings that are taking place. He will have seen surveys by the BBC and others that show increased public awareness of regional government, and, indeed, increased support for it. Following my right hon. Friend's meetings with representatives of the business community, can he tell us which of the issues they raised most need to be addressed in order to reassure them that regional government will be good for business and for regional economies?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am conscious that, as my right hon. Friend says, there is growing awareness of the issue. In

    1507
    particular, I have noticed the considerable coverage in The Journal in her region. That rightly highlights the importance of this historic decision, which will be vital to the future of the north-east. Last week, I attended a successful hearing in Berwick-upon-Tweed, which was attended by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith); my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister held a similar hearing in Blackburn on the same evening.
    For business, it is essential that regional assemblies provide an effective means of enhancing economic development by improving the joining up of services to link economic development with housing and transport planning, and that they do so in the most cost-effective way without creating new bureaucracy. That is exactly what the Government's plans provide for.
    Mr. Edward Davey: In the draft Bill that the Minister just mentioned, will he consider including the functions of the Highways Agency among those to be devolved to a future northeast regional assembly? Does he realise that that would massively increase the chance of a strong turnout and a yes vote in a referendum in the north-east?
    Mr. Raynsford: The issues that will influence turnout are more important than just the role of the Highways Agency. However, the way in which the work of the Highways Agency would relate to the work of elected regional assemblies was debated in the hearing that I held in Berwick, where there is particular interest in the dualling of the A1. That is one relevant issue, but there are many others. People will come out to vote and decide on the basis of whether they believe that decisions are better taken in their region or in London.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Are there any circumstances in which the referendums would not take place in October?
    Mr. Raynsford: I have already made it clear that the referendums are dependent on receipt of the reports from the boundary committee for England, which has been invited to come forward with proposals for the best form of unitary local government. We will consider those reports when we receive them and, providing that we receive them in time, orders will be laid before Parliament to allow referendums to be held in October. That, however, is conditional on those earlier steps being taken in that time scale.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I make it clear to the Minister that we have no objection in principle to the use of all-postal ballots for the referendums, although we would have no objection to conventional ballot-box voting if it seemed that postal voting would not be a sound election system? Why the rush to postal voting, unless it is to avoid the embarrassment —the result of apathy towards the Government's proposals—of what the Minister has called a derisory turnout? He has admitted that such a turnout would invalidate the results. What can have provoked the extraordinary letter from the Electoral Commission of 4 March except, possibly, the wholly
    1508
    improper pressure that Government Ministers are putting on it to rush in postal balloting, because they think that that is in their political interests?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on every single count. There has been no rush to all-postal voting. We have conducted pilots during the past four years that have led the Electoral Commission to conclude and recommend that all-postal voting should in future be the norm for all local authority elections. That is the background, and we have taken into account the commission's advice, which is clearly that all-postal voting hugely increases turnout. If the hon. Gentleman were more concerned about turnout than scoring party political points, he would welcome the move. There is no substance whatever to his entirely unworthy allegation of pressure being exercised on the Electoral Commission.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the Minister aware that my party has grave reservations about the wisdom of all-postal ballots in a referendum or in any other election? Bearing in mind that there is to be an all-postal ballot, will the Minister tell the House what he regards as a satisfactory turnout?
    Mr. Raynsford: Turnout at the local authority elections that had all-postal ballots last May was almost 50 per cent., compared with an average turnout of just over 30 per cent. in local authority elections that use conventional voting, which is a huge difference. If it is possible in practice to achieve a huge increase in turnout and voter participation with no evidence—the Electoral Commission has made this point—of any increase in fraud or personation problems, there is a convincing case for making greater use of all-postal voting.

    House Building (Essex)
    Mr. Simon Burns: If he will make a statement on house building targets in Essex. [159906]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): Current regional planning guidance provides for just over 5,000 new homes a year in Essex. We are on course to meet the target, and we are doing that at higher densities—the figure increased from 21 dwellings per hectare in 1997 to 26 dwellings per hectare in 2002.
    The East of England regional assembly is currently preparing new regional planning guidance to meet future housing needs across the region under the sustainable communities plan.
    Mr. Burns: Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge the genuine anger in Essex at the prospect of 131,000 extra houses being built in the county by central Government diktat? That will lead to whole areas of Essex being concreted. Instead of a top-down policy of diktat, why will not the Deputy Prime Minister consider a bottom-up method, thereby leaving it to local, elected planning authorities, which are familiar with their areas and needs, to determine the best number of houses to meet demand?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should have a talk with his Front-Bench team. On the

    1509
    one hand, there are complaints about houses being built and on the other, that not enough houses are being built. The undoubted shortage of houses in the south-east has affected house prices and it is therefore right for us to increase that number. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we are doing that. Indeed, the East of England regional assembly is taking that into account and will make recommendations to an independent review, which will present recommendations to me about numbers.
    I emphasise that the East of England regional assembly is dominated by the Tories, who have a majority of elected members, including a Tory chairman. Does the hon. Gentleman have no faith in the decisions made for that region by the East of England regional assembly?
    Andrew Mackinlay: May I tell the Deputy Prime Minister that the area where the 131,000 houses referred to by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) are to be built includes the borough of Thurrock, which welcomes them? Every week at my surgery, there are people who are looking for low-cost accommodation in and around the areas where their families live and where they have been brought up. We welcome the additional houses; that also applies to the local authority. I applaud the Government for establishing the urban development corporation in Thurrock—I give them a good mark.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his supporting remarks. I simply point out that the previous Tory Administration cut the housing development budget from £4 billion to £2 billion between 1993 and 1997. My hon. Friend is well aware of that because he was a Member of Parliament at the time. We have increased that budget from £2 billion to £4 billion. Those are the right priorities.
    Bob Russell: How many of the new houses that the Deputy Prime Minister has announced today will be council houses? If the answer is none, why is new Labour so opposed to building council houses?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As I said earlier, our priority is to improve what the hon. Gentleman calls council houses. We have improved nearly 1 million and brought them up to decent standards. They suffered under the previous Administration, who put great emphasis on the right to sell such houses but did not use any resources to improve standards in the remaining stock. We believe that such improvement is the right priority and that is why we are doubling the amount of money for housing and taking action to make houses more affordable.

    Housing (Overcrowding)
    Ms Oona King: What steps the Departments is taking to reduce overcrowding in housing. [159907]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): My hon. Friend will agree that the basic answer to the problem of overcrowding is to increase the supply of affordable housing. That is why the Government are

    1510
    investing in that twice the amount that we inherited from the Tories in 1997. Meanwhile, I look forward to sharing with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have a specific concern about overcrowding the results of the reviews on the subject carried out by and for the Department, My hon. Friend will also know about the commitment that I made in the Committee that considered the Housing Bill to examine what might be done to improve the statutory overcrowding standards incrementally. I shall follow up that commitment on Report.
    Ms King: I agree that the answer is to increase the supply of affordable housing. I thank the Minister for initiating research following my comments, and those of others, about the negative impact of overcrowding on my constituents and many others; but what further steps will the Government take to tackle the problem? The current subsidy encourages housing associations to build one and two-bedroom properties, and discourages them from building three and four-bedroom family-size accommodation. What can the Minister do to increase the amount of such accommodation?
    Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but we are making significant progress on overcrowding. I am sure that she and others with an interest in the subject will welcome that. I take her point about the nature of the accommodation. We are anxious to ensure that new housing development features appropriately sized accommodation, and we are working to that end.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that last summer there was a near-tragic fire in a private two-bedroom flat in my constituency occupied by 22 illegal Chinese immigrants, victims of people-trafficking? What can be done to prevent such incidents?
    Keith Hill: One obvious solution is for us all to support the excellent Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill, which is currently proceeding through the House.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Broxtowe council is trying to reduce the shortage of affordable housing by insisting that 25 per cent. of every new development must consist of such housing, but it would be helpful if deals could be done to enable affordable housing to be developed in other locations in return for luxury housing at the main sites. My constituents in Stapleford would really benefit from that. Will the Minister consider giving councils more flexibility in this regard? [Interruption.]
    Keith Hill rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, let me say that the Chamber is far too noisy.
    Keith Hill: I can reassure my hon. Friend by telling him that such flexibility already exists. We are eager to enable local planning authorities to make decisions that fit local circumstances.

    Council Tax
    John Barrett: What work his Department has undertaken with the Department for Work and Pensions to help those on low incomes to pay their council tax bills. [159908]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): The Department for Work and Pensions is primarily responsible for the benefit system and for encouraging council tax benefit take-up. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the DWP work closely together on those issues. A campaign launched last week called "Cut your council tax" is aimed at increasing the take up of council tax benefit.
    John Barrett: Council tax payers on low incomes, who include many pensioners, will always be the hardest hit. How long must such people suffer under the present council tax? When will the Government get rid of it and replace it with a tax based on income and ability to pay?
    Phil Hope: We want to see council tax benefit take-up. We discussed the complexities and the costs of a local income tax last week during the balance of funding review. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Democrat proposal would cost some £2.4 billion, which would impose a massive burden on employers. We are carefully considering all the options, but unlike the Liberal Democrats of today, and the Tories of yesterday with their poll tax, we will not introduce uncosted, unworkable taxes that would affect local government and damage local people.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that many pensioners do not know about the improved council tax benefit that is now available? What can we do to make more of them aware of it, so that they can claim the amount to which they are entitled to help them pay their bills?
    Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is right. Some £800 million in council tax benefit is unclaimed each year; 35 per cent. of pensioners do not claim the benefit to which they are entitled. That is why we have launched the take-up campaign. Rather than whingeing about all the problems, perhaps Opposition Members could join us in urging councils to encourage people—including pensioners on fixed incomes—to claim the benefits to which they are entitled.
    Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Minister read his own reports? The report by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy estimated that a local income tax would save £350 million. Does the Minister not accept that such a system would be fair, better funded and more equitable?
    Phil Hope: It is regrettable that, while they may read other people's reports, the Liberal Democrats do not examine their own proposal Their proposals, including an increase in the tax threshold to £5,000, would cost £2.4 billion. Where will the money come from? It will come from the taxpayer—and the taxpayer will not support uncosted, unworkable Liberal Democrat proposals.

    Local Authority Employees (Political Restrictions)
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: When he expects to publish the results of his Department's review of political restrictions on local authority employees. [159909]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister(Phil Hope): The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends shortly to begin a review of the ethical framework relating to local authority employees, which will include a review of political restrictions on employees. We are issuing a consultation paper to local authorities and will publish our conclusions arising from that review later in the year.
    Dr. Naysmith: If my hon. Friend goes through his Department's files, he will find that I have been raising this matter on and off since 1997. One statement suggested that the matter would be sorted out by Easter 1998, so he will understand why I am pleased by his reply. My constituent, Mr. Ian Scott of Filton, will also be pleased because he was denied the chance to stand for South Gloucestershire council this year and was even asked to resign his parish council position. Can the Minister assure me that the matter will be sorted out before the council elections in 2005?
    Phil Hope: I recognise and understand my hon. Friend's concerns. The review will begin in April-May this year and will completed by August-September. The Conservative Government introduced the restrictions in an act of political vindictiveness after the Labour party put them under pressure to provide a fair deal. We will proceed on a consensual basis, examine the scope of the restrictions and develop a rational outcome that has the widest possible support.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Miss Widdecombe: Does the Prime Minister still consider that most people in this country think that he is a pretty straight kind of guy?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that most people recognise that the Government have delivered record levels of employment—[Interruption.] It is the Government's record that should matter in the end: a huge cut in

    1513
    unemployment, the lowest mortgages and inflation for 30 years, improvements in the national health service and the best school results ever— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Miss Widdecombe, when you ask a question it is polite to wait for the answerߞeven if you consider it not to be an answer.
    The Prime Minister: There is one other thing: the British crime survey shows lower crime than when the right hon. Lady was a Home Office Minister—a pretty good sort of record.
    Helen Jackson: I was going to congratulate my right hon. Friend warmly on last week's launch of his Commission for Africa, until I realised that gender equity has not been mentioned and that only one of the 10 commissioners is a woman. Does he acknowledge the widespread evidence that shows that development aid is most effective when it has a strong focus on women, and will he adjust the commission accordingly?
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that other women will join the commission. My hon. Friend is right to say that some of the issues have a strong gender focus, but I point out that we will increase bilateral aid from this country to Africa over the next couple of years to £l billion a year, which will mean that we have literally trebled aid to Africa since we came to power. That is in stark contrast not only to the record of the previous Administration, but to the Conservative party's current proposal to cut overseas aid in real terms.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Who authorised the change of policy towards migrants from eastern Europe who say that they want to set up businesses in Britain?
    The Prime Minister: It was, so I understand, authorised by managers in the Sheffield office.
    Mr. Howard: I understand that an inquiry is taking place into the matter. Meanwhile, Mr. Moxon, the man who told the public the truth, is suspended, and the managers to whom the Prime Minister refers, who introduced the secret policy, and the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who did not have a clue what was going on, are still in place. Why is that fair?
    The Prime Minister: It is for the Department to decide its own personnel procedures in respect of each individual. That is right, and as it should be. However, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised the issue, let me deal with one or two of the facts. There have been statements in various quarters that the matter involves some 11,000 people a week. It actually involves specifically people from the accession countries that are about to join the European Union. The total number of applications in the last year was under 40,000 and the vast majority were already here legally. Of course it is important to establish exactly what happened, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship
    1514
    and Immigration has announced the inquiry. No doubt any disciplinary procedures will follow the outcome of that.
    Mr. Howard: Let me see if I can help the Prime Minister. He is obviously rather uncomfortable about the matter and he is, after all, Minister for the Civil Service. Mr. Moxon, the whistleblower, is here this afternoon. He is willing to meet the Prime Minister and me to tell us what happened. Will the Prime Minister meet us this afternoon?
    The Prime Minister: No, I will not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he was Home Secretary for several years under the last Conservative Government, would never have tolerated such a thing. Surely the issue is simple: a practice developed in that office that should not have developed. The Minister has already made that clear and she has also made it clear that she was not aware of it. I am trying to put the matter in context, because it is not the case that it involves hundreds of thousands of people a year. It almost certainly involves only a very small number of people— [HON. MEMBERS: "Forty thousand?"] No. The vast majority even of the 40,000 were already here legally. Therefore, the number of people claiming entry into this country would have been much smaller than that. Nor is there any reason to believe, because they come principally from countries such as Poland, that they were here for any bad purpose.
    Mr. Howard: I thought that the Prime Minister, just for once, might be interested in finding out what is going on in his Government. Under this Government, Ministers do not know what is happening in their Departments; Departments deny the truth and then have it dragged out of them; people are allowed to stay in the country without any proper checks being made; and the only person who suffers is the whistleblower who tells the truth. Does not that say everything about the way in which this Government works, and does not the Minister for the Civil Service think that he should speak to the civil servant to find out what is going on?
    The Prime Minister: No, it should be left to the Department to conduct its disciplinary inquiries in the proper way. I have no doubt that that is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have done when he was Home Secretary. The fact that he is now saying that I should personally take charge of this matter is utterly ludicrous. An inquiry is under way in the Department because of a practice that should not have developed. Instead of exploiting the issue—as he does every one of these issues—he should try to ensure that we have a measured, sensible debate about migration, not one that takes place on the basis of scary headlines that turn out to be wrong.
    Mark Tami: My right hon. Friend recently visited the Airbus factory at Broughton. I am sure that he will be as concerned as I am at the decision of the Environment Agency to prevent dredging of the Dee at Mostyn dock, which will effectively stop the export of the A380 wings. Can he assure me that that £30 billion project will not be endangered and that the decision will be reversed in the

    1515
    public interest? Can he further tell us when he expects the Environment Agency to join the rest of us in the real world?
    The Prime Minister: I know from my visit to the plant what a tremendous project it is, and how vital it is to the local economy with its thousands of highly skilled jobs. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has discussed the issue already with my hon. Friend, and he would be pleased to do so again. I hope that we can resolve the matter satisfactorily in the coming period of time, because obviously it is important for the work force and the future of an important industry.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister agree with Lord Penrose's report into Equitable Life, which concluded that it was not merely reckless company management that led to the scandal, but negligent regulation by the Government?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with Lord Penrose's report. In fact, it put the majority of the blame on the society itself, but of course the regulatory issues going back many years are among the things that it investigated, and we stand by the conclusions that were drawn.
    Mr. Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister accept, however, that the Government's complacent and misleading response to the report will come as a serious disappointment to the million people who have lost so much, and undermine the faith of millions of others? Will he give an undertaking to ask the parliamentary ombudsman to establish once and for all whether there was Government maladministration?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that there has already been a finding that there was not maladministration with respect to one of the cases brought, but of course the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has the full powers that have been conferred. I have to say, however, that there was nothing complacent about our response. We commissioned the report and made a statement to the House about it and its implications. The plain and simple question is whether the Government can commit themselves to paying compensation that would run into billions of pounds—
    Mr. Kennedy: I did not ask about compensation.
    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman did not ask about that, but a casual observer might have thought that he was implying it. All parties in the House recognise that it would not be possible to do that, so of course we will carry on doing whatever we possibly can, including implementing the Penrose recommendations. Any other investigations involving outside bodies are obviously a matter for them.
    Mr. Graham stringer: My right lion Friend will be fully aware that the level of public resources going into public services is heavily dependent on the number of people
    1516
    living in an area, and he will be further aware that that is particularly true for the health service. I am sure that he knows that Mr. Cook, the Registrar General at the Office for National Statistics, botched the census so badly that he miscounted by 25,000 people. Can he therefore assure the people of Manchester who use the health service that the funding that they would have got if Mr. Cook could count will be provided, and that Mr. Cook will soon become an unemployment statistic?
    The Prime Minister: I know that this is a matter of great concern to my hon. Friend and to people in Manchester. It is part of the discussion that we are having about the census, and once that is resolved we will see what implications there are. However, it is fair to say that it is always difficult to perform these censuses, which are usually a matter of controversy; they are often hotly contested. I hope that he understands that what was done was done in good faith, and we obviously await the outcome of the current discussions.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Last week, I asked the Prime Minister about treatment for some 2,800 people who are going blind unnecessarily as a result of wet age-related macular degeneration. He said that he would look into it and write to me, but I have yet to hear from him. I know that some NHS patients are now being treated, but many more could be. As the Royal National Institute of the Blind told the Prime Minister last week, there are nearly 50 centres with the necessary specialist equipment and support staff, who could be treating many more NHS patients today. Will—[Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State for Health contain himself and stop chuntering, and will the Prime Minister now act to deal with the situation?
    The Prime Minister: We are acting to deal with it. I have indeed looked into it, and the reason why there was a delay of nine months instead of the normal three is that we had to build up the proper capacity in order to deal with this properly. The nine-month extension was agreed with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which made the recommendation in the first place.
    In respect of the other centres, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary was saying that he thinks that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was citing an estimate given to him by a private firm. I do not know. I have not looked into that myself, but I will do so. When I examined the facts on the basis of what he put to me last week, they turned out not to be correct. This was not a matter of the Government refusing to act when the capacity was there. The reason for the delay was that we had to build the capacity in order to treat people properly.
    Mr. Howard: I have not been relying on any information from a private firm; I have been relying on information from the Royal National Institute of the Blind, which is not at all convinced by what the Prime Minister says. It wrote to him and told him about this matter last week. It said:
    "The Government are dragging their feet…There is no shortage of doctors…We know of 50 centres around the country that can provide people with treatment who otherwise may go blind. The situation as it now stands is a sham and it has effectively denied people treatment for far too long."

    1517
    The truth is that patients need this treatment to stop them going blind, and doctors want to treat them to stop them going blind, so why will the Prime Minister not intervene to sort out this mess?
    The Prime Minister: We have made it absolutely clear that we will use whatever capacity is available. [Interruption.] If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would listen for a moment, we have made it clear that we will use whatever capacity is available. The reason why we have not dealt with the situation in the normal three-month period is that the advice that we have is that the capacity is not available to deal with people at the moment. We are using whatever capacity we can, and using the additional six months to build up extra capacity.
    We are aware of the RNIB's making these claims, but they are disputed, I am afraid, by those who actually have to implement this policy. That is why I said at the outset that this extension of time was agreed with NICE, whose recommendation we are implementing.
    Mrs. Helen Liddell: The Prime Minister will be aware of today's sensationalist stories about the security of electricity supply. Will he ensure that the Government, in putting the record straight about these scare stories, do not lose sight of the fact that future electricity generation is indeed an issue, largely because of increased demand, the run-down of coal and nuclear stations, and our very relaxed attitude to energy efficiency? Would it not be a tragedy if the nation's economic ambitions were held back by failings in energy policy?
    The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend says is absolutely right. That is why it is important that we carry on pursuing a balanced energy policy, and that we make sure that we use a number of different sources of energy. It is one of the reasons why, over the past few years, we have sought to make sure that, as well as maintaining a coal industry, we are also maintaining the nuclear industry and importing energy, where we can, from secure sources. That is why it is important that people's beliefs about the electricity supply are not ruined by programmes that, let us say, are being a little speculative about what might happen over the next few years.
    Mr. David Rendel: My constituent, Miss Caroline Cocker, wants to buy a home of her own. She has been to see her building society mortgage adviser, who told her that because of her student debt of £12,000, the building society cannot lend her enough. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education recently admitted that top-up fees are likely to push student debt up to some £20,000. What does the Prime Minister think that that will do to the housing market?
    The Prime Minister: Let us first look at the issue of debt. It is correct that students can already take out a £12,000 maintenance loan. Under our proposals, they will be charged and will pay back, once they graduate, up to £3,000 a year for a three-year course, so that is another £9,000. But this is not a debt like an ordinary mortgage debt. Nothing is to be paid back until people
    1518
    have the means to pay, and it is linked to their ability to pay and carries no real rate of interest. That is surely better than doing what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, which is to raise the top rate of tax to 50 per cent., or what the Conservative party would do, which is to cut the number of students going to university.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of his Sedgefield constituents and many of my North Durham constituents have benefited greatly from the scheme, introduced by a Labour Government, through which miners and former miners who were exposed to coal dust are compensated? That is a real achievement that is of benefit to those communities. Will he join me in condemning the small minority of claim handlers and solicitors who are plundering victims' compensation for costs, despite the fact that those costs are covered by the Department of Trade and Industry under the scheme?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is of course absolutely right to say that the compensation paid to former coal miners has been of enormous benefit to those who suffered greatly as a result of the work that they did, and a substantial amount of money has been paid out. He is right, too, to say that there are worries about the way that some cases have been handled, and each case had to have legal representation. I understand that the Law Society is investigating some of the complaints and that the Department of Trade and Industry has written to the solicitors concerned. I hope that we can make s ire that, if any money is unfairly taken from clients, it is returned to them.
    Hugh Robertson: The Strategic Rail Authority has proposed to cut completely the rail service on the Maidstone to Ashford line outside peak periods. Given that this is a vital transport facility for many local communities, and that the proposal breaks specific undertakings given by the Government at the time of the channel tunnel rail link, will the Prime Minister act to prevent those proposals?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly look into the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Everything has to be done within the transport budget—that is clear and that is right. However, it is obviously important that we maintain the services. I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point, but I cannot give him any undertaking until I have done so.
    Mrs. Irene Adams: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he has no plans to alter the gun laws, and in particular that he will never countenance the use of guns by children? Does he not find it rather worrying that one Conservative Member does not seem to know the primary difference between the use of a car and the use of a gun?
    The Prime Minister: It is extremely important that we maintain the ban on handguns. Introducing that ban was one of the first things this Government did. We did it with a great deal of opposition from the Opposition

    1519
    Benches. I hope that everyone now understands that it was the right measure and a good measure, and we will maintain it.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Prime Minister is aware of the thorough report last week by Surrey police on the tragic deaths of four young soldiers at Deepcut barracks in my constituency. I know that he will want to join me in sending condolences again to the families of those soldiers and in paying tribute to the police and to the Army for its constructive response to the recommendations by the police. However, the Prime Minister may not be aware of the huge concern felt in that small village in my constituency about subsequent reports that the barracks site may soon be sold for a second huge housing development on a barracks site in that same small village. Will he agree to meet me and local campaigners, county councillor John Phillips and Mrs. Shirley Coveney, because there is huge concern that the Deputy Prime Minister's plans to concrete over further parts of Surrey will be hugely damaging?
    The Prime Minister: I reiterate my sympathy for the families who are concerned in the Deepcut affair in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words about the Army.
    In respect of any new housing development, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is obviously for the Ministry of Defence to decide what land it can sell. Housing development is important in the south of England. I do not think that that concreting over—it is making sure that people have homes that they can live in. The hon. Gentleman will also know of the tremendous concern that people live that the shortage of housing in the south-east is putting up prices, especially for first-time buyers. Every Government must keep a balance in these matters, and we try to do so by making sure that 60 per cent. of the development is on brownfield sites. I think that that figure is being met and even exceeded.
    Phil Sawford: I welcome the news of additional funding for the police to include targets for CCTV cameras, crime hotspots, community wardens, anti-drugs work and reducing crime. However, may I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention a recent article in the Kettering Evening Telegraph, which suggests that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has promised to provide 180 more police officers for the north of Northamptonshire? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Northamptonshire receives its fair share of resources? Does he think that anyone in Kettering, Corby and Wellingborough will be fooled by the promises of the Conservative party?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right that we have record numbers of police officers—more than 138,000, the highest number ever. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will not be going down the route proposed by the Conservative party, which is a freeze on the Home Office budget. That would mean a cut of up to £1 billion in that budget, which would mean fewer police
    1520
    officers, fewer CCTV cameras and fewer opportunities to cut crime. There is a very stark choice in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Prime Minister aware that members of all political parties on the Scottish Select Committee found the evidence of Customs and Excise yesterday in favour of strip stamps on whisky bottles deeply unconvincing? Therefore, with a week to go before the Budget, will he call a halt to those daft, damaging, job-destroying plans, and instead give proper consideration to the industry and union-backed proposals both to combat fraud and to safeguard vital jobs in a vital industry?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be notified of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
    Liz Blackman: Many young people in Erewash have no earnings protection and are open to exploitation by unscrupulous bosses who pay them a pitiful wage for often quite responsible jobs. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what progress he is making on delivering the minimum wage for our young people?
    The Prime Minister: The minimum wage is not benefiting simply young people alone—about 1 million people benefit from it. From October this year it will be raised to £4.85 an hour and by that time more than 1.5 million will benefit from it. Some people said that unemployment would go up as a result of the minimum wage, but there are now 1.75 million more jobs in our economy. I hope that next week we will be in a position to say more about the national minimum wage and its impact on young people, which will no doubt find support—at least on this side of the House.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Why are the Government seeking to reverse the long-standing ban on the export of live horses, which will result in many of our ponies facing a miserable journey to southern Europe to be turned into salami.
    The Leader of the House (Mr. Peter Hain): Animal welfare!
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has said, not entirely helpfully, that animal welfare is the key to all of this. I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman about this matter; I cannot give him an off-the-cuff answer.
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware of the decision by Tesco to purchase local corner shops and close their post offices without any prior consultation with Members of Parliament, the Post Office or indeed members of our local communities, including those present today from Longlevens in my constituency? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Tesco should work with, not against, local communities on this particular issue?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned strongly on the matter, which is an issue of

    1521
    concern in his constituency. I also know that Tesco has said that it will work closely with post offices in respect of this matter, and I would be pleased to know the outcome of the discussions. It is important that when post offices are reviewed, and if they are within the Tesco framework, account should be taken of local views.
    Sir John Butterfill: If the Prime Minister is determined to ignore the plight of Equitable Life pensioners, will he at least listen to Alan Pickering, whose report he commissioned? Having ignored him in the Pensions Bill so far, will he listen more carefully in Committee? Will he also take note of what Alan Pickering said today, when he called for the Government to abandon the present system of means-testing and move to a pension as of right for all citizens, paid for eventually by an increase in the pensionable age?
    The Prime Minister: There are a number of points there. First, let me tell the hon. Gentleman that we are not ignoring the plight of Equitable Life pensioners. Their plight is serious and difficult, but let us be absolutely honest with each other in the House. It is a matter of whether or not we pay compensation to those people. I have studied carefully the comments of Conservative Front Benchers, and they have not committed themselves to compensation. A few moments ago I had an exchange with the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who is not committing his party to compensation. These people need not sympathy, but help, and we are looking into what help we can properly give them. However, it would not be responsible of me or anyone else to say that we could underwrite the entirety of the losses stemming from Equitable Life. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that.
    As to the Conservative party's proposal to get rid of pension credit and bring in the basic state pension at a higher level, the reason behind the pension credit—which is now benefiting millions of pensioners in this country—is that we believe that it is important to direct the most help to the poorest pensioners. That is why, in comparison with what we inherited in 1997, we are spending an extra £9 billion a year on pensions. We are
    1522
    determined to ensure—it is why we have lifted so many pensioners out of poverty—that the help goes to those who need it most.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The Prime Minister talks about pension credit and he is obviously aware that there are millions and billions of pounds in the Chancellor's coffers that have not been taken up. Will he and his Ministers look into finding other ways of getting pensioners to take up entitlements that they have not taken up? Also, why can they not have free travel in the regions of England, as happens in Scotland and London?
    The Prime Minister: I will take up that last point. My hon. Friend is right to say that free travel is a tremendous thing for a lot of pensioners, and I know that there is a desire to extend it to England. As for pension credit, we are doing our very best to improve take-up, but my hon. Friend will know from his constituency that thanks to the pension credit and the minimum income guarantee, literally millions of pensioners have seen their incomes rise substantially. Surely that is a better way to go than the Conservative party's proposal to raise the basic state pension by a smaller amount—and they have still not said how on earth that could possibly be funded or costed.
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Will the Prime Minister join the people of Gibraltar in celebrating 300 years of Britain's sovereignty this year, and will he take this opportunity to reassure the people of the Rock that his Government will never again enter into shameful discussions with Spain over the sovereignty of British Gibraltar?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to join the celebrations of the people of Gibraltar, and to say to them yet again that there will be no change in their constitutional position without their consent. However, let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the discussions that took place were initiated under what was called the Brussels process, which was started by the Conservative Government. [Interruption.] Oh yes they were—and it is perfectly sensible that we continue those discussions. I also want to say that, yes, it is important that we protect people in Gibraltar, and we have given them that constitutional guarantee, but our relationship with Spain is also important to this country in the modern world. In the early 21st century, Spain is one of our key partners in the European Union. That does not mean that we alter our commitment to the people in Gibraltar, but it does mean that we regard Spain as a friendly ally, not some hostile foreign power.

Points of Order
12.31 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that you are not responsible for the contents of ministerial answers, or for the contents of any answer that the Prime Minister gives this House, but you do preside over a House whose duty is to hold the Executive to account. When a Member of this House asks the Prime Minister a straight question, and the answer is about as related to that question as to the habitats of African elephants, how are we supposed to hold the Executive to account?
Mr. Speaker: As the right hon. Lady says—she is so right—I am not responsible for the content of the replies, but I am responsible for good order in the Chamber, and she was very noisy indeed today; she was noisier than usual, if I may put it that way. Reluctantly, I had to tell her off, and I hope that I will not need to do that again. [Interruption.] I do not need to tell the Prime Minister off; whatever answers he gives, they have nothing to do with the Chair. I have enough responsibilities.
Mr. David Cameron: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of Back Benchers who listened to the exchange between my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, may I ask whether you will entertain any request from the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House and explain what has been happening about the degenerative eye disease that they were speaking about? I have a constituent, Mr. Newman of Carterton, whose surgeon has told him that he is suitable for treatment on the NHS. The consultant would like to give him treatment on the NHS, but the money is not there. We need a statement from the Secretary of State for Health to explain why people such as my constituent, who will go blind if they do not get that treatment, cannot get it on the NHS now. This is not an issue of capacity; the Government are not being straight with us.
Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with the difficulties of the hon. Gentleman's constituent—I genuinely do—but the hon. Gentleman should go to the Table Office and table questions to the Secretary of State for Health on the subject. That is the way to do it.

Rights of Way (Amendment) Bill
12.33 pm
Janet Anderson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to public rights of way for vehicles.
The Government are currently consulting on the problems caused by the use of unsurfaced byways open to all traffic by mechanically propelled vehicles. Indeed, an early-day motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on the subject has attracted a great deal of support.
It states:
"That this House welcomes the Government's proposal to close the legal loophole whereby historical evidence of use by horse and cart, or dedication as a carriageway prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine, can give rise to a claim for a byway open to all traffic which, if successful, allows for use by modern recreational motor vehicles of green lanes and other unsurfaced routes in the countryside: notes existing byways open to all traffic will still be subject to inappropriate and unsustainable use by recreational motor vehicles; is concerned that our precious countryside in the national parks and areas of outstanding beauty…continue to suffer appalling damage and urges the Government to take action forthwith to protect these areas by reclassifying existing unsurfaced byways open to all traffic as restricted byways and issuing better guidance on enforcement to enable the relevant authorities to take swift and effective action where recreational vehicles are being driven illegally."
We should not be surprised at the support in this House and elsewhere for action. In my own constituency of Rossendale and Darwen, an area of breathtakingly beautiful countryside and moorland, those of us who are walkers, hikers or horse riders are continually horrified at the desecration and damage caused to some of our byways by the inappropriate and unsustainable use of those byways by recreational motor vehicles. We particularly suffer from this in areas of Darwen, such as Sunnyhurst woods, Bailey's Field and the route to Darwen Tower, not to mention Cranberry Moss, the use of which continues to attract much local debate. In the valley of Rossendale, the problem similarly abounds, particularly on Whitworth common and the countryside around Rossendale general hospital.
All this is of particular concern to horse riders. It is often claimed that there are more horse riders in my constituency than in any other in the country. The British Horse Society has recognised that riders who have to dice with death on the roads feel strongly that they should not have to worry about encountering motor vehicles on public rights of way.
For most riders, the issue is more about damage to the surface than the surprise of the occasional danger of meeting a motor vehicle. Walkers and ramblers take a similar view. Only last week, I received a letter from a resident of the Rossendale valley. It was headed
"Environmental damage to open moorland close to Rossendale General Hospital".
The resident said:
"I was dismayed to observe the tyre damage to my regular walk over this area of moorland. Yesterday I decided to retreat from the moor on noting two bikers with two other adults accompanying them. I am not a wimp, but decided that a confrontation was not in order. Why should I feel intimidated? This area is used by many walkers. It is an area of tranquillity and peace. It is

1525
environmentally sensitive. Some years ago, the Council spent time and money on planting heathers etc and on improving the pathways. I would ask what legality bikers have in riding over this moorland?"
Mr. Alan Johnson, the countryside officer for the north-east Lancashire area, sent me a supportive e-mail. He wrote:
"Good news that you are introducing a Private Members' Bill to ban quad bikes etc from bridleways and public footpaths. This is a very important issue for Rossendale's countryside."
My good friend Inspector Roger Ravenscroft from Rawtenstall was also supportive. He said:
"I fully support you on this one. As a keen mountain biker in the Ribble Valley and the Lakes, I am only too well aware of the damage some off road motorcyclists and 4x4 drivers do to tracks making them virtually unusable by other countryside users."
In conclusion, I can do no better than to quote the Ramblers Association. It points out that the term "green lane" has no legal meaning, but is symbolic of many unsurfaced tracks that form part of the rights of way network and are often ancient in origin. In law, many are classed as
"byways open to all traffic".
Although legally open to motor vehicles, these ways are defined by Parliament as carriageways used mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are used.
Yet the growing pastime of recreational off-road driving on green lanes is of increasing concern to walkers, cyclists, horse riders, land managers and all those concerned with the conservation and protection of the countryside. The Ramblers Association view is that motorised use of rights of way, for sport, is rarely appropriate and that vulnerable pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and horse and carriage drivers should be able to enjoy the rights of way free and safe from as much motor traffic as possible.
The Bill aims to balance the interests of individuals and organisations with appropriate protection for the tranquillity and conservation value of our countryside. The way in which we use our public rights of way has changed dramatically over the past 100 years, and the Bill will provide greater certainty about existing public vehicular rights. It will also provide my constituents with the reassurance that they seek, and I commend it to the House.
12.40 pm
Lembit Öpik: I rise to oppose the Bill, although it would not be a good use of the House's time to divide on it, so I do not intend to push it to a vote.
I am chair of the all-party motorcycling group and have previously spoken to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) about the measure and understand her concerns. I have been riding motor cycles since 1982 when I owned a Yamaha YB100—a bike so tatty that my friends knew it as the "Why bother"—and I am persuaded, as are the Government, that bikes and motor bikes have an important role to play, not only for transport but also for recreation. Used responsibly, motor cycles present no problem; used irresponsibly, they are both irritating and dangerous.
1526
I accept that there is a problem in the countryside. A small number of individuals, especially those who use byways, can cause a great deal of trouble by acting irresponsibly, but—as ever—I question whether we should punish the majority simply because a few cause a nuisance. Is that response in proportion to their number?
One in nine people in Britain have ridden a motor bike, or hold a full bike licence, and, apart from the ecological benefits to which I referred, motor cycling can be a pleasant activity. Motor cyclists and pedestrians can coexist comfortably in rural, recreational areas as long as there is mutual respect. It is only a small minority who seem to feel that they have the right to tear up the countryside, make noise and cause danger, and it is those people about whom the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen is most concerned.
A ban affects everybody, so I suggest that, if the hon. Lady is willing, we should try to hold a dialogue with interested parties, including representatives from the motor-cycling unions—the Auto-Cycle Union, the Motorcycle Action Group and the British Motorcyclists Federation. They are acutely aware that, ultimately. if there is no proactive solution that involves either self-regulation or some degree of understanding in relation to those public areas, the hon. Lady's proposal for a ban or a restriction may be the only way forward.
Given the comments that the hon. Lady made in her speech, I should like to highlight a few of my concerns about the assumptions that are made about motor cyclists. Appalling damage can be done, but much of the time the majority of those individuals create no damage at all. Indeed, there is no point in their causing damage, as they want to enjoy the countryside that they ride through. The use of recreational motor vehicles is inappropriate and unsustainable only if it is taken to excess or carried on without consideration for the countryside.
The British Horse Society has legitimate concerns, but as the hon. Lady pointed out, the use of horses and carts on many byways in the past provided the precedent for riders nowadays. They benefited from a precedent established in former times, when pedestrians might have had issues about the presence of horses.
I propose that dialogue offers a way forward, if the hon. Lady and other Members, such as the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), are willing to pursue that path. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has held consultations and the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality has taken an active interest. In addition, park-keepers and the police should be involved in the dialogue.
Options could include designating some paths as pedestrian-only and ensuring that their status is adhered to through voluntary agreement or the specific measures that local authorities can already enforce. In the medium term, we could ensure the enforcement of sanctions on individuals who mess things up for everybody else.
I absolutely agree that this is a serious concern, and the all-party motorcycling group takes the two-wheeled element of it very seriously. I hope, nevertheless, that we can work at least to explore whether there is a less dramatic solution than what could amount to a motor-

1527
cycle ban on some of those byways. If the motor cyclists cannot fix things for themselves, understand that Parliament may have to do so with some mandatory enforcements, but we are not yet there. It is easy to ban things; it is perhaps harder to educate people to be responsible. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady and other hon. Members who have taken great interest in this matter are willing to pursue dialogue before proceeding with legislation.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Janet Anderson, Andy Burnham, Chris Bryant, Paddy Tipping, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. George Howarth, Mr. Kevan Jones, Mr. Greg Pope and John Mann.
RIGHTS OF WAY (AMENDMENT)
Janet Anderson accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to public rights of way for vehicles: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 May, and to be printed [Bill 70].
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A ten-minute Bill has just been introduced that is of very great concern to a number of hon. Members who represent large country constituencies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) on her success, but is it not the practice, first and foremost, that if an hon. Member opposes a Bill, he or she should at least follow that through with a shout of no, which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) failed to do; and, secondly, that at least one Minister from the relevant Department should attend in the Chamber when such a Bill is debated? I very much regret that, on such an important issue, no Minister is present from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is currently consulting on this matter.
Lembit Öpik: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just to clarify, you may not have heard me but I did say no—but not very loudly. As you are aware and as I made clear to your office, I felt that it would be an inappropriate use of parliamentary time to divide the House, when we are looking for a consultative solution, rather than simply trying to make a point on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you check the records, you will find that there were many occasions when previous Speakers used to tell people that they had to
1528
oppose a motion. Indeed, when I first came here, they had to shout and divide the House. Why? Simply because not doing so is an abuse of parliamentary time. The Order Paper says that 10 minutes will be allowed for the Member to move the motion and 10 minutes for someone to oppose it. In this case, that individual—a typical Liberal, who does not know whether he is on this earth or fuller's—said that he would not oppose the motion and wanted to get together with my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson). Ten minutes for, 10 minutes against—that is the principle. You wasted time, you tin-pot Liberal—shut your gob.
Janet Anderson rose—
Mr. Speaker: Let me deal with the three points of order, and then I will call the hon. Lady.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was not referring to me when he mentioned wasting time.
On the point of order that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) raised, I have been chairing proceedings for quite a long time, as he knows, both in Committee and in the Scottish Grand Committee, and then in the Chamber. When I am in the Chair, I am entitled to express an opinion when hon. Members shout from one side of the House or the other, and I often say that I think that the ayes have it. It is at that stage that an hon. Member can disagree with that opinion. There was a shout—it was a very quiet shout—and I only wish that that was the case at Prime Minister's Question Time. To reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire: there was a shout. I heard it because I have good hearing.
There is no absolute rule about the appropriate Minister sitting on the Treasury Bench, but it is a courtesy for them to do so. I would expect that courtesy to continue, and I hope that Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will take note of what I have said.
Janet Anderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and to what you have said by pointing out that the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality has been very supportive of my introducing the Bill. In fact, he left a message with me this morning to say that he was very sorry that he could not be present in the House because he had another engagement. I assure the hon. Gentleman that DEFRA is very much taking an interest in the matter, and the Minister did not intend any discourtesy to the House.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Lady for making that clear.

Orders of the Day

  Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
  [Relevant document: The Second Report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 302-I, on the Separation of Paramilitary Prisoners at HMP Maghaberry, is relevant to Clause 12 of the Bill (Transfer of prisoners).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  12.51 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill represents another step forward on Northern Ireland's path to peace, stability and justice. At the heart of the agreement was a commitment to build a police service and a criminal justice system that would enjoy the support of all sections of Northern Ireland society. It is our view that the Bill is proof that the Government are still completely committed to achieving that end—and to completing the implementation of the Good Friday agreement.
  Today is also an opportunity for us to judge just how much has been already been achieved in that task. It is an opportunity for us to look beyond the difficulties that currently confront us and to remind ourselves, and the people of Northern Ireland, of how much has changed and how much has improved since the signing of the agreement almost six years ago.
  The political and peace process in Northern Ireland has reached a defining moment, however. Paramilitarism survives in Northern Ireland, and its survival, in defiance of the agreement and the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, is what we must now tackle. The attempted abduction of a man last month, in broad daylight and cold blood, was but the latest example of the paramilitary activity that has undermined the Good Friday agreement in some respects and, in its indirect impact, has denied the people of Northern Ireland the chance to run their own affairs.
  Those who were party to the 1998 agreement acknowledged—some explicitly, some implicitly—that paramilitary activity would not disappear overnight. But six years on, there can be no justification for continuing paramilitary violence. Each corrosive act of crime or violence eats into the hope to which the agreement gave rise.
  Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State referred to the attempted abduction and who knows what else recently. Will he join me and, I am sure, other Members of the House in welcoming what appears to be the initiative of the Independent Monitoring Commission in starting an investigation into that incident and perhaps other cases as well? Perhaps he would now like to revise the date by which he would ask it to bring in the report that it appears to have started work on.
  Mr. Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that, during the press conference held by the Independent
  1530
  Monitoring Commission yesterday, it did not actually say that it would look specifically at this issue; it said that it might. However, he and I agree on the fact that the commission has an extremely important role to play not just in this particular incident—very difficult though it was—but in the overall assessment of paramilitary activity. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiscach meet tomorrow in Dublin, and I know that they will be discussing the implications of what the right hon. Gentleman and others have said, together with what the IMC said yesterday.
  Mr. Frank Field: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a growing feeling in the House that the punishment beatings and exclusions are now a far greater impediment to progress in Northern Ireland than the surrender of arms by the paramilitaries. We know that they have the resources to buy new supplies of arms, should they surrender them. However, ceasing the punishment beatings would show a real change in the character of the people wishing to participate in the public affairs of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Murphy: My right hon. Friend is right on both counts, in that both issues are important. He emphasises the so-called punishment beatings and I agree that that is an area of paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland that is absolutely unforgivable. It erodes the peace process and the political process, and it is wicked in itself. Where I am not quite sure that I agree with him is to dismiss the idea of decommissioning. That is an important part of the Good Friday agreement, but I very much agree with him about so-called punishment beatings.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Following the intervention of tic right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), may I point out that the Government do not need to ask for an earlier report from the Independent Monitoring Commission? It has the power to bring about an earlier report. Perhaps the Secretary of State could advise the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that, if he finds himself with more time on his hands in the coming weeks and months, he could go to the IMC, like my party has already done, and ask it to bring in an earlier report.
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right, in that the commission has the ability to instigate and initiate investigations on its own account.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Secretary of State's point is very interesting. Can he inform the House of where the Independent Monitoring Commission will get its intelligence or evidence from? Will it be from the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Garda Siochana in the south of Ireland or its own efforts on the ground in the north of Ireland? That is a crucial question that we must consider to realise the difficulties that will face the commission, just as it has faced both police services.
  Mr. Murphy: I think that my hon. Friend has answered his own question. The commission may gather evidence from all the organisations and agencies to which he has referred. It can also come to the Governments to examine certain items of intelligence.

  1531
  On the issue that we were discussing, clearly the evidence that the Police Service of Northern Ireland gives is critically important.
  I am confident that hope was not misplaced and I am confident that the agreement will survive. That confidence stems from my personal memory of what was intended in 1998, and what was so fervently wished for by the people of Ireland and of Northern Ireland. A new beginning was envisaged, and all the parties who signed up to that vision were entrusted with bringing it about. I challenge anyone to show that, for the Government's part, we have not made huge efforts and great strides to realise that vision.
  In criminal justice, the Bill before us is just the latest in a series of reforms inspired by the criminal justice review. The review itself was probably the most comprehensive of its kind anywhere in the world, and its 300 recommendations are resulting in a wholly transparent and equitable system in which rights and justice go hand in hand. In January, in his first report, the new criminal justice oversight commissioner stated that there had already been "significant and impressive progress". Of course, Lord Clyde's office itself, and that of the new chief inspector of criminal justice, are innovations that we have delivered and which are helping us bring about further reforms.
  Lady Hermon: Will the Secretary of State enlighten the House as to the resources that have been made available to the new chief inspector of criminal justice, and tell us just how large his inspectorate is at the moment?
  Mr. Murphy: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I shall ask the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) to give her the details at the conclusion of the debate.
  I have told the House on other occasions that it is in policing that the most striking—and perhaps the most important—reforms have been undertaken. However, that bears repeating, because the quiet dedication and professionalism with which the police implemented the change from the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the Police Service of Northern Ireland has sometimes obscured the magnitude and difficulty of what they have achieved. Almost 10,000 officers played a part in what was a change not only of name, badge and uniform but of culture. Northern Ireland now has a force that is answerable to a cross-community Policing Board and to the 500 men and women—nationalists and Unionists; Catholics and Protestants—who sit side by side on district policing partnerships.
  Helen Jackson: I agree with my right hon. Friend that one of the major reforms since the Good Friday agreement has been the reform of the police service. Does he agree that one of the greatest issues that dogs the community in Northern Ireland—it is connected to paramilitary violence—is the failure of one of the parties that claims to be a political party to accept the validity of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, despite the reforms and despite its superb record under its new Chief Constable?
  Mr. Murphy: That is why it is important to put on record the Government's gratitude to the Social
  1532
  Democratic and Labour party, the Catholic Church and others for ensuring that the new policing arrangements have been as successful as they have been.
  Lembit Öpik: I do not want to deviate too far from what we are discussing today, but does the Secretary of State accept that the biggest single thing that could reduce the paramilitary beatings in Northern Ireland and improve the rule of law in areas that are not traditionally supportive of the police would be a clear expression of intent by Sinn Fein, saying that it will no longer intimidate Catholics who wish to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Murphy: I was about to refer to intimidation. I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning the cowardly attacks that have again this week been aimed at some of the brave men and women who serve on district policing partnerships, including the latest incident regarding Mr. Tom McBride, the chair of Strabane DPP. More than 1,000 new policemen and women—half of them Catholics—have been recruited, which has changed the face of a force that enjoys support throughout Northern Ireland.
  Northern Ireland's troubles were born among feelings of inequality and injustice, but the paramilitaries who prosecuted the war—on both sides—merely served to deepen such divisions. That is why, when the ceasefires and the Good Friday agreement marked the closure of the troubles, we were determined to eradicate inequality and enshrine human rights. On that, too, we have seen great success in six short years. Northern Ireland is no longer a place of chronic unemployment. Just 4 per cent. of the work force are currently unemployed, compared with over 7 per cent. in 1998. The differential between Catholic and Protestant employment has been dramatically reduced. Northern Ireland has by far the most comprehensive equality legislation in Europe. We have greatly strengthened fair employment and antidiscrimination laws and ensured that public bodies in Northern Ireland are obliged to promote fairness and equality of opportunity. On health, housing and education, we have delivered programmes to tackle inequality, and we are determined to succeed.
  David Burnside: How can the Secretary of State stand before the House and talk about equality of employment in Northern Ireland when the Government have institutionalised discrimination in recruitment to the Police Service of Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman and I will simply have to disagree about that. We believe that the procedure is an important part of the process and, indeed, it flowed from the Patten report and the agreement itself.
  Human rights in Northern Ireland have also been strengthened. In areas of traditional concern, there is now a powerful set of organisations to ensure that rights are protected. The police ombudsman, the children's commissioner and the chief inspector of criminal justice ensure that rights are at the heart of policy and practice. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, despite the problems that it now has, has also played a vital role, especially in relation to old age and mental health.

  1533
  In all those areas, we are striving to make Northern Ireland a normal society, and we recognise that the security forces in Northern Ireland also have an important role to play in that. That is why, for example, we have overseen the departure of more than 2,000 troops, which has taken numbers down to their lowest level since 1970. Of course, those changes are a direct result of the dramatically reduced level of threat in Northern Ireland. I will never tire of pointing out to the House and others that violent deaths per year in Northern Ireland are now counted in single figures. We must remember that it was not so long ago that that tragic tally was measured in hundreds.
  That fact tops a list of achievements since 1998 of which the people of Northern Ireland can be proud. Although the current talks face considerable difficulties, which I do not underestimate, the successes that we have already achieved bear testament to a determination to overcome all obstacles and build a peaceful and stable future for all people of Northern Ireland. The Bill must be seen in that context, which is why I have taken a few moments to remind the House that the Bill and the efforts made by the Governments and parties are integral parts of the progress made since 1998. The Bill is another brick in the new inclusive edifice of a better Northern Ireland.
  The Bill provides, first, for the establishment of a judicial appointments commission in advance of the devolution of criminal justice matters to the Assembly. The criminal justice review recommended that the commission be established after devolution of justice and policing functions, and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 provided for that. However, we see merit in bringing forward the establishment of the commission. We believe that it will make the appointment processes for the judiciary more transparent and encourage a wider range of applicants than ever before. That will be an important contribution toward enhancing public confidence in the Northern Ireland justice system.
  Mr. Trimble: The Secretary of State refers to the fact that the Bill brings forward the creation of a judicial appointments commission from the time originally intended. I am sure that he followed with interest proceedings in another place earlier this week when their lordships decided to refer to a Select Committee the Bill containing equivalent provisions for England and Wales. I am sure that he will want to follow that Committee's consideration, and when that Bill comes forward from their lordships—no doubt considerably improved—I hope he will be willing to take on board the improvements made.
  Mr. Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman and I will await with interest the deliberations of the other place on the judicial appointments commission. He is of course aware that a judicial appointments commission exists in Scotland, that the concept of a judicial appointments commission has existed in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday agreement, and that the principle of such a commission was enshrined in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. However, we will naturally follow with great interest the deliberations in the other place.
  Mr. Trimble: The Secretary of State mentions the judicial appointments commission in Scotland. That operates on a non-statutory basis, so it is rather difficult to get a clear impression of how it is working from this distance. In looking forward to the subsequent proceedings on the Bill—should it receive its Second Reading—will he try to make available to hon. Members details of how that commission operates, what its structure is and what the experience has been in Scotland, because that might be illuminating?
  Mr. Murphy: Indeed, it might well be. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the details of the Scottish experience off the top of my head, but I can say that the principle of commissions for judicial appointments is not novel.
  I emphasise that the continued independence of the judiciary is absolutely integral to the system. The Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 enshrined the principle of judicial independence to which the Government remain fully committed. Indeed, the principle was also highlighted in the part of the Good Friday agreement that dealt with criminal justice.
  Turning to the other judicial appointment provisions, the 2002 Act stipulates that lay members of the commission should be representative of the community. The Bill provides that the composition of the commission taken as a whole will, as far as possible, be reflective of the community in Northern Ireland. We think that it is right in principle to make that change in the interest of enhancing public confidence in the justice system.
  David Wright: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the commission will consider not just religious communities but issues relating to women's rights and black and ethnic minority communities? We need to increase their representation through such processes.
  Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right, but the commission must reflect society as a whole in Northern Ireland, not just the groups to which he referred.
  The 2002 Act placed time limits on lay membership of the commission. It is right that judicial members of the commission should have the same time limits applied to their membership as those that currently apply to non-judicial members, and the Bill provides for that. Merit has been, and will continue to be, the sole basis for judicial appointments. That is non-negotiable. Subject to the principle of merit, a key objective of the commission will be to engage in a programme of action to secure a judiciary that is reflective of Northern Ireland society. I want to make it clear that no one is in the business of appointing applicants on the basis of political opinion, gender or religion. It is important to stress that reflectiveness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) said, does not apply just to religious background. There is, in fact, a more obvious and pressing need for more applications from women and people from an ethnic minority background.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: Is the Secretary of State thinking about a pool of merit—a pool of people who reach an approved standard from which appointments can be made according to a 50–50 formula or some other criteria?
  Mr. Murphy: No, I am not thinking of that. As I said, individual appointments will be made on the basis of merit, but there is nothing wrong in the commission considering whether the judiciary in Northern Ireland and everyone involved in the judicial process reflects Northern Ireland society.
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Secretary of State mentioned the need to recruit more female police officers in Northern Ireland. However, many young female constituents in Lagan Valley who have applied to join the new police service have successfully passed all the tests and entered the merit pool, but in the end they have not been appointed because they are Protestant—because of the church they attend on Sundays. Female applicants are successful in reaching the merit pool, so why on earth can they not be recruited and their religious affiliation be disregarded?
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman has made his point forcefully, but I said earlier that the arrangements in place for the Police Service of Northern Ireland resulted from the Patten report and the agreement. In the case of the judiciary, it is important that we try to ensure that we encourage more women and people from ethnic minorities to apply to become members.
  Clauses 4 and 5 look forward to the day when justice and policing functions are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Under that further stage of devolution, when appointing the Lord Chief Justice and Lords Justices of Appeal the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, will make recommendations to the Prime Minister. The Lord Chief Justice, as the head of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, will be consulted by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and his views will be made known to the Prime Minister, who will then make a recommendation to the Queen. That builds on the formulation in the 2002 Act, bringing it closer to the original recommendation of the criminal justice review and enshrining the fundamental role of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the process.
  The House will be aware that on introduction in another place the Bill included a provision dealing with the removal or suspension of judges. That clause was lost, and I would like to signal my intention to reintroduce it as a Government amendment at an appropriate time so that Members of this House will be able to debate the issue. Another provision in the Bill builds on the 2002 Act by placing a duty on the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to refer to the police ombudsman all cases of suspected police malpractice that he comes across in his role as prosecutor. The duty will ensure that the police ombudsman is made aware of allegations of police misconduct which she may not otherwise know of. The duty concerns the transfer of relevant information, and does not change in any way either the DPP's role in reaching decisions about prosecution or the police
  1536
  ombudsman's role in investigating allegations of police misconduct. That, too, more closely reflects the original review recommendation.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: That is not an absolute duty on the DPP, as he has discretion. That was not recognised in the agreement between the two Governments, when there was a compulsory duty on him. The Bill says that he should refer any matter that "appears" to indicate certain things, not that he must do so.
  Mr. Murphy: I believe that there will be debates about those issues in Committee.
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: The Minister has not satisfactorily addressed the question. The criminal justice review clearly stated that when an allegation is made it should be referred to the ombudsman. The Bill proposes that matters should be referred if, in the DPP's opinion, there appears to be wrongdoing. Those are two entirely different things, and I believe that the review's proposal should be included in the Bill.
  Mr. Murphy: As I said, there are different views and various interpretations of the clause, but I repeat my belief that that will be debated in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will return to the issue at the end of this afternoon's debate.
  Mr. McNamara: When my right hon. Friend made his original statement, he said that the duty was absolute, so I challenged it. He has now provided a different interpretation in the clause. He will remember that in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 there was an interpretation of such provisions to which, under the rules of interpretation, judges were supposed to pay attention. In fact, judges in the Irish courts refuse to accept his interpretation, so the matter has had to go to the House of Lords.
  Mr. Murphy: That is why I have twice stressed that because of the complicated nature of the clause it is best addressed in Committee, when it will be debated in detail. For the sake of accuracy in reports of our proceedings, if anyone wishes for further clarification they will have to wait until my right hon. Friend the Minister of State refers to the matter in detail.
  The 2002 Act confirmed the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. That is another non-negotiable principle. The creation of an offence of seeking to influence the prosecution decision-making process will ensure that those who seek to impinge on the independence of the prosecution will be brought to book.
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Can the Secretary of State explain how the provision will differ from the operation of the existing offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice?
  Mr. Murphy: I hope to do so in a few seconds. My explanation may not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that it will satisfy others.

  1537
  As I said, by creating an offence of seeking to influence the prosecution decision-making process, we will make sure that those who seek to impinge on the independence of the prosecution will be brought to book. The offence is deliberately linked to the well-understood idea of perverting the course of justice. We want to ensure that innocent approaches, such as a doctor passing medical information to the DPP, or a person writing in defence of a relative, are not criminalised. We want to ensure that it is understood by people who seek to raise such issues that those approaches are not criminal. The offence targets activities with malicious intent.
  The criminal justice review concluded that human rights and dignity should be a core value of the criminal justice system in all its aspects, and the Government fully endorse that view. To integrate human rights awareness into the criminal justice system still further, a requirement will be placed on criminal justice organisations to have proper regard to guidance on relevant international human rights standards in carrying out their functions. That guidance will be issued by the Attorney-General.
  Lady Hermon: Would the Secretary of State elaborate on which international human rights conventions or declarations the Government have in mind in clause 7?
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Lady will have to wait until later this afternoon for a detailed answer to that, but it will be provided. I am conscious that many Members want to speak in the debate, and I am sure that she is one of them. We will be able to give her a full and proper answer later.
  The Bill introduces a right of appeal for the prosecution against the grant of bail by a magistrate's court. We believe that that is appropriate in terms of bringing Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain. That provision is supported by the police and by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  The Bill brings arrangements for breach of bail in scheduled cases into line with current practice in nonscheduled cases and makes some minor amendments in relation to the treatment of those on bail in nonscheduled cases.
  The independent review of security in Maghaberry prison that was conducted by John Steele and others concluded that republican and loyalist paramilitary prisoners should, on a voluntary basis, be accommodated separately from each other and from other prisoners. That recommendation has been accepted, and work to implement it is ongoing. The review also recommended that those new separated arrangements should be backed by a range of measures to prevent deterioration into segregation as it operated in the past in HMP Maze. The Bill introduces, as one such measure, a new power allowing the transfer of a prisoner from Northern Ireland to another prison in England or Wales in the interests of maintaining security and good order in prisons. Northern Ireland has only one high-security prison, and the dispersal of troublesome prisoners within the Northern Ireland Prison Service estate is not therefore possible.
  David Burnside: Further to the separation of prisoners in Maghaberry for understandable prison security
  1538
  reasons, can the secretary of State confirm whether prison governors are negotiating directly with the Provisional IRA and the loyalist paramilitary leadership in those prisons?
  Mr. Murphy: I understand that the prison management in those prisons are dealing with the organisations to which the hon. Gentleman refers in the sense of a compact. The word "negotiation" would perhaps be inappropriate in such cases. In terms of considering what is best done in those prisons, all prisoners were asked their views on the Steele recommendations when they were put forward. Beyond that, the prison governors have been talking to the Prison Officers Association and dealing with the political parties.
  Very wide consultation has taken place on the proposals. That is important, because we want them to work. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants them to work, too, which is why he said that separation is important for safety's sake. Under the proposal, in the event of a situation involving an exceptionally troublesome prisoner that disrupts the only high-security prison in Northern Ireland, provision is made for transfer to Great Britain.
  Mr. Iain Luke: On the transfer of prisoners, is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern that is felt by many who serve on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, and who reviewed the issue of separation in Maghaberry prison, as well as by many on the mainland? They fear that if this proposal is implemented, it may be used as a tool or a weapon by the paramilitaries to seek further political gain to the detriment of the prison authorities in Northern Ireland or, indeed, to impede the peace process.
  Mr. Murphy: We agreed with the Steele tribunal's recommendation that it is important to deal with safety problems both inside and outside prisons. It was, after all, an independent tribunal, which, incidentally, had the support of the Churches and of those right across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland. Obviously, I hope that the provision does not have to be used, but as the tribunal made the recommendation and we considered it sensible we have to legislate for it. We added these measures to the Bill because they are good common sense and the Bill is an appropriate vehicle.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: May I press the Secretary of State on this issue? Is he aware that, although he used the term "independent" in reference to the committee, concern has been expressed that interference from a higher authority was involved in its setting up?
  Will the Secretary of State give a guarantee on behalf of the Government that there will be no outside interference with the internal discipline of the prison when those in the Prison Service seek to hold the line in protecting the safety of prisoners?
  Mr. Murphy: There was certainly no interference from on high, from outside, or whatever phrase one might want to use. I wholly reject that. It was my decision to institute the independent tribunal, two of the

  1539
  three members of which are former clergymen who were prison chaplains. They, and John Steele himself, are people of the highest integrity, and I accepted their recommendations in their entirety. They were sensible recommendations that will ensure that we deal properly with the safety of prisoners inside the prison and prison officers outside the prison. That is an important issue for all the people of Northern Ireland.
  On the hon. Gentleman's point about prison safety, we must not return to what happened at the Maze over all those years, when the prison— or part of it—was controlled by paramilitary groups. That is certainly not my intention or that of the Government. We are considering the safety of people in those prisons—officers and prisoners—and we thought that separation was the best way forward.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend is talking about the transfer of prisoners from Northern Ireland. Why is that to apply both to paramilitaries and to ordinary prisoners? It is argued that paramilitary prisoners may apply pressure to try to turn separation into segregation, so the provision goes too far. Would it not have been a good idea to have engaged in separation in the first place?
  Mr. Murphy: As I said, it is not the Government's view that separation means segregation—we are opposed to that. However, the provision has to be put on the statute book in case it is ever needed. As my hon. Friends know, the difficulty is that prison resources in Northern Ireland are limited—there is effectively only one high-security prison. That means that from time to time we need to call on the Prison Service elsewhere in order to deal with troublesome prisoners.
  The Bill will amend section 103(2)(e) of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act 1975 criminalised intelligence gathering against those working in the Prison Service in Northern Ireland. The Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence to collect information relating to a
  "full-time employee of the prison service".
  That does not offer the same degree of protection to all classes of prison staff. The Bill will ensure that part-time workers will also be protected. That is in line with Lord Carlile's recommendation in his independent review of part 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
  The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland is anxious to have the power of arrest without warrant for the offence of driving while disqualified. That power exists in the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able fully to support the taking of firmer action against the serious problem of disqualified driving.
  The powers of court security officers, as set out in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, are built on to ensure that all relevant buildings have adequate protection.
  The Bill deals with the fact that barristers in Northern Ireland cannot enter into contracts for the provision of their services, whereas those in England and Wales can. It brings the situation in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales.
  1540
  I have to disagree with the reasoned amendment tabled by the Opposition. The Bill does not weaken the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. Its purpose is twofold. First, we are continuing to build a criminal justice system that has the confidence of the whole community. Secondly, we are increasing the powers that are available to the criminal justice system, especially to the police and the courts, so that they are able to do their job more effectively. The Bill does not in any way weaken the criminal justice system—rather, strengthens it on two counts.
  Nor does the Bill undermine the judiciary. The Government are wholly committed to judicial independence, and that fundamental principle is asserted clearly and unambiguously in the Bill. All measures in the Bill relating to the judiciary meet that standard. Likewise, the principle of appointment solely on the basis of merit is asserted in the text of the Bill. Contrary to the Opposition's insinuation, appointment on merit alone is not incompatible with efforts to ensure that the widest pool of talent is available from which to make such appointments.
  Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that the procedures set out in the Bill politicise the judiciary. The 2002 Act makes it clear that
  "those with responsibility for the administration of justice must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary".
  The process for appointing senior judges, after the devolution of responsibility for criminal justice, is guided by the principle of judicial independence, which is itself enshrined in the terms of the Good Friday agreement.
  The Government look forward to the day when decisions on local justice will be placed in the hands of local Ministers. We are confident that that devolution will happen when the time is right: when we have a stable Assembly and Executive; when there is an enabling security environment; and when the local parties are ready to make the devolution of justice and policing a reality. In the meantime, we have a responsibility to set the pace by continuing to improve the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland in a way that maximises public confidence and political support.
  The Bill's provisions mark an important step in the reform and development of the justice system in Northern Ireland. The Bill will help to provide for an even fairer, more efficient and more effective justice system. It will provide for a justice system that is more transparent, open and accountable, and that will instil even greater levels of confidence in all parts of the community. The Bill is another milestone on Northern Ireland's journey to a just, stable and peaceful future, and I commend it to the House.
  1.31 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: I beg to move,
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill because the Bill will weaken rather than strengthen the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland; will undermine the independence of the judiciary in Northern Ireland; will lead to the greater politicisation of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland; and will weaken the principle of appointment to the judiciary solely on merit.
  I start on a bipartisan note by associating myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the deserved tribute that the Secretary of State paid to the members of the

  1541
  district policing partnerships and the Northern Ireland Policing Board, who are having to withstand all manner of intimidation, threats and outright violence as they go about their duties. All democratic politicians owe those men and women a debt of gratitude for what they are doing. I also ally the Opposition with the Secretary of State's commitment to continuing the search for a means of restoring to Northern Ireland effective devolved institutions that command the necessary support from all parts of the community there. However, the Opposition doubt that the Bill will help that search for an enduring peace in Northern Ireland.
  Judicial appointments are at the core of the Bill, and the provisions that relate to them are at the core of our reservations. I shall devote most of my speech to them, but I shall first refer to other provisions that the Secretary of State mentioned. Clause 12 deals with the transfer of prisoners. I understand the reasons behind that clause and I do not quarrel with it as a matter of principle, although I question whether, in the light of the Home Secretary's catastrophic mismanagement of the Prison Service in England, there are any spare cells on this side of the water in which to accommodate prisoners sent over from Northern Ireland. I hope that when the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) replies, he will be able to confirm whether the Government will later introduce amendments to extend the Bill's scope to include Scotland, as has been reported in parts of the Scottish press.
  Lady Hermon: Does the hon. Gentleman also support the making of reciprocal arrangements with the Republic of Ireland to allow disruptive republican prisoners in Maghaberry prison to be transferred to Portlaoise in the Republic?
  Mr. Lidington: I should be prepared to look at that proposal with an open mind, although I do not know whether the hon. Lady is suggesting a reciprocal arrangement that would allow the United Kingdom to take prisoners from the Republic. That idea is well worth serious consideration.
  It is the Government's foolish and, I regret to say, disgraceful decision to concede the principle of the separation of paramilitary prisoners at Maghaberry that has given rise to clause 12. I visited Maghaberry two weeks ago, and I want to put on record my admiration for the bravery and professionalism of the prison governors and officers working there. As the Secretary of State knows, he has some brave men and women working for him in the Northern Ireland Prison Service and I know that, whatever their personal feelings, they will do their utmost to implement the policy on which Ministers have decided, and attempt to prevent separation from deteriorating into outright segregation.
  I notice that the Secretary of State made no reference in his speech to the trenchant conclusion of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs—which has a majority of Labour Members—that
  "the separation of paramilitary prisoners… was demanded by dissidents for political reasons and acceded to by the Government for (other) political reasons."
  David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern at the Secretary of State's response to my earlier
  1542
  intervention, in which he confirmed that the prison governors and management at Maghaberry were in negotiations with the Provisional IRA and the leadership of loyalist paramilitaries? That means that, in reality, a political status was involved in the negotiations. That is very serious.
  Mr. Lidington: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. If that is happening, it suggests that the boundary between separation and segregation has already been crossed, which would be to the disadvantage of us all.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) cannot have heard my clarification of my point. I said that "negotiations" was not the appropriate word, and that, although discussions might be taking place, those are not the same as the sort of negotiations to which I assume that he is referring, such as those that might have taken place when segregation was operating at the Maze prison. That is not the case in this instance. Hon. Members must be aware that when the Steele recommendations came out, people across the board in Northern Ireland—including the Churches, the political parties and the community in Northern Ireland—agreed with separation but not with segregation.
  Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reassurance, but that exchange shows how difficult it will be for the Government or for the officers and prison governors at the front line to ensure that the distinction between separation and segregation is maintained in practice. The Select Committee stated that it was
  "doubtful that the Government's decision to separate was wholly and simply about safety."
  The Committee concluded that that decision was taken
  "contrary to the balance of the facts and arguments presented to us".
  Mr. Mallon: May I take the opportunity of agreeing with the Secretary of State on this issue? One cannot expect absolute purity of position on this matter, given the experience of what the prisons, and what happened in them, in the north of Ireland did to the community there for almost 30 years, and the contribution that that in itself made to paramilitarism. God knows how many people would be alive today, and whether the political face of the north of Ireland might have been completely different, had there been Secretary of State then, and a John Steele then, who took the decision that has now been rightly taken on Maghaberry.
  Mr. Lidington: No one—least of all me—is going to impugn the hon. Gentleman's commitment over many years to democratic and inclusive politics in Northern Ireland, but on this issue we have to disagree. The risk that we now run is that we might, over time, concede control of those wings of Maghaberry prison to the paramilitary organisations, and that we will once again repeat the mistakes that it were made at the Maze.
  Lembit Öpik: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's strongly held views with interest. If the Conservatives feel so strongly about this issue now, and are so

  1543
  confident that they could do a different job if they were in government, why did they not do so in the 1980s and 1990s?
  Mr. Lidington: If the hon. Gentleman looks back at the history of the period before either of us was a Member of this place, he will find that, during the 1980s and 1990s, the then Conservative Government had recognised the mistakes that had been made in relation to the original decision to permit segregation, and were working to phase it out—as eventually happened. I remind him that the criticisms that I have quoted from the Select Committee report were agreed unanimously by every member of that Committee, regardless of party.
  Mr. McNamara: I cannot comprehend the hon. Gentleman's understanding of the situation at the end of the last Conservative Government, when the Maze—formerly Long Kesh—was completely segregated and no moves were being made to stop that. Also, it was his former right hon. Friend the late Viscount Whitelaw who, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, was the first to grant concessions on political status.
  Mr. Lidington: There are few people in any political party who, looking back on the decisions taken in the 1970s, would believe that they helped the cause of peace and democratic politics in Northern Ireland. I am anxious that we should learn from that experience and not repeat those mistakes now or in future.
  Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lidington: No, the hon. Gentleman has already made one intervention, and I want to make some progress.
  The problems that will face the Prison Service and Ministers are highlighted by the reports in the Northern Ireland media in the last few days. They involve threats of new dirty protests and hunger strikes, and tensions between Provisional IRA suspects and members of other republican terror groups being held on remand at Maghaberry.
  Mr. Luke: Like the hon. Gentleman, I visited the prison and viewed the different accommodation improvements involved in the move to separation. Does he accept that the concern of the Select Committee's investigation was that the line now conceded should be held, and that the Government have given verbal guarantees that the line will be held? That is vital for the situation there.
  Mr. Lidington: I agree that, Ministers having made that decision, it is vital to make every effort to maintain that line, as the hon. Gentleman urges. However, I fear that it will be difficult to maintain the line in practice, in the face of determined efforts by terrorist groups in the prison to test that boundary at every opportunity. The Select Committee, on which he sits, was right to conclude that the Government's decision was dangerous, especially for the public servants who will have to implement it and live with its consequences.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the former Secretary of State for
  1544
  Northern Ireland and subsequent Home Secretary, Mr. Whitelaw, apologised publicly to the nation through the media for the mistake that he had made? One of the first victims of that tragedy was a prison officer—a member of my congregation—who spoke out on behalf of the brave prison officers, and who was murdered coming out of the civil service headquarters.
  Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. His constituent was, sadly, one of far too many prison officers and governors who were murdered or maimed by terrorists in Northern Ireland.
  I am glad to tell the House that we can fully support two clauses in the Bill. Clause 9 will give the prosecution the right of appeal against a decision by magistrates to grant bail, and clause 14 will make driving while disqualified an arrestable offence. We have no problem in supporting those proposals. They are welcome crumbs from the Government's table, but their inclusion highlights the missed opportunity that the Bill embodies. The people of Northern Ireland, whether they are nationalist or Unionist, want to be protected against crime and antisocial behaviour. For the most part, they want that task to be carried out by the lawfully constituted police force, prosecution service and courts, rather than by the freelance activity of terrorist groups, whether loyalist or republican. Surely it is our job as legislators to give priority to whatever measures will be effective in enabling decent citizens in Northern Ireland to live their lives in safety.
  The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland has made it clear that he wants to see changes in the law to strengthen his hand against criminals. The police would like antisocial behaviour orders and parenting orders to be made available in Northern Ireland, along with local curfew schemes, powers to remove truants to designated places and the extension to Northern Ireland of the special provisions in the law relating to racially aggravated offences. I would have thought that that last proposal deserved particular priority, given the appalling attacks on members of the ethnic minorities in Belfast in recent weeks. The figures that I have seen suggest that there has been a 30 per cent. rise in reported racial attacks in Northern Ireland over the last year. However, not one of the measures that I have just listed has been included in the Bill. What is more, the Government have drafted the long title in such a way as to make it very difficult to table amendments to include them.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar): While I fully accept that consultation can sometimes be lengthy and tedious, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that I should truncate the consultation and introduce the legislation before we have gone through that process and allowed the various groups and individuals in Northern Ireland to comment on our proposals?
  Mr. Lidington: What I am saying is that, given that the Northern Ireland Office has only this single opportunity to introduce primary legislation in this parliamentary year, it would have been better off getting the results of its consultation and then introducing a Northern Ireland criminal justice Bill that would tackle the genuine difficulties faced by law-abiding citizens and

  1545
  seek to add to their protection, rather than introducing this legislation, which I do not believe will serve that purpose.
  Mr. Trimble: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that, given the tremendous delay in starting to advance some of the measures that he mentioned—some of which have been on the statute book this side of the water for years—it is highly reprehensible of the Northern Ireland Office that it should now start this leisurely, elongated procedure. In view of that delay, it would have been more reasonable to proceed with greater expedition.
  Mr. Lidington: The right hon. Gentleman's description and assessment are correct. The Government's priorities are simply misplaced.
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the opportunity that the Government have missed to introduce legislation. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland support the introduction of the necessary provisions and are therefore mystified about why consultation should take so long.
  Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is right. People throughout Northern Ireland, whether Unionist or nationalist, would welcome the package of criminal justice measures that the police have sought and that I have described. Instead, the Bill tampers with the judicial appointments system in a needless and possibly harmful way. Fewer than two years—595 days—have passed since the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 received Royal Assent. Yet the Government today propose significant changes to a law that they believed was just right for Northern Ireland only two years ago.
  Unsurprisingly for a Conservative, I should prefer to leave judicial appointments to the Lord Chancellor, perhaps with an appointments commission to advise and assist him. Matters were conducted in that way under devolved Administrations between 1921 and 1972 and subsequently during periods of direct rule. No Minister has suggested that the current judicial appointments system has produced a partial or incompetent bench. I am sure that the Secretary of State recalls that, for example, the late Lord Lowry, at the height of the troubles, ruled that a conviction could not be founded on the evidence of a supergrass alone. He made that judgment because he believed that it was right in law, even though he must have known that it was bound to lead to several dangerous terrorists being able to walk free. One could point to Lord Hutton's decision in 1994 to dismiss the appeal against the murder conviction of Private Clegg. That decision caused some difficulty for Ministers and other politicians.
  Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman appears to suggest that the system worked well from the 1920s until things started to happen in the 1990s. Does he agree that that was not a golden age for justice in Northern Ireland? I put it no more strongly than that. Does he agree that no one would look back on that period with great sentiment?
  Mr. Lidington: I am an enough of a sceptic not to believe in golden ages. I do not argue that we should go
  1546
  back to the political arrangements that existed in Northern Ireland between 1921 and 1972. We want to move forward, but the examples that I cited refer to important judicial decisions in much more recent history. My point stands that I have heard no persuasive criticism of the current judicial appointments system, on the grounds that urges are either incompetent or partial. The only arguments to that effect that I have heard were made by people who have a considerable vested interest in undermining the judicial and criminal justice system.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman impresses greatly with the breadth of his knowledge and the depth of his research and I am therefore sure that he knows the answer to my question. Roughly how many Roman Catholic judges were appointed during that period?
  Mr. Lidington: I am not sure to which period the hon. Gentleman refers. If he examines the figures for the current senior judiciary in Northern Ireland, he will see that people from Protestant and Roman Catholic traditions serve on the bench. Judges and magistrates have been murdered and intimidated by terrorists during the 40 years of the troubles. All holders of judicial office, at whatever level, have had to live in peril of their lives and have known that their families were also under threat.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman and I agree that many Catholic as well as Protestant judges lost their lives through the troubles. I am following carefully the drift of his speech. He appears not to take into account the fact that the Good Friday agreement specifically wanted the criminal justice system to be reviewed. That led to last June's criminal justice review implementation plan, which clearly emphasises the need for a judicial appointments commission. Does not he understand that we have had to go through that process?
  Mr. Lidington: The Government made the changes in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. I do not understand the need, let alone the urgency, for the Government to introduce yet further changes before the 2002 legislation has had time even remotely to bed in.
  Mr. John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although all that he says is true and many examples exist of stalwart upholders of the law making inconvenient decisions for the Government, a problem of perception lies behind the review? Would he leave matters as they are or make other changes, different from those that the Government propose?
  Mr. Lidington: I would try to make the 2002 Act work and let us see how we progressed from there. The biggest change for the better that we need in Northern Ireland is for all political parties to be prepared to endorse the work of the police, the courts and the prosecution service. Sinn Fein's insistence that it does not have confidence in those institutions, its desire to deter people from participating in them and its attempts to undermine them as biased and partial helps to create the difficulty of perception that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) described.

  1547
  As the Secretary of State said, the basis of the judicial appointments commission is the criminal justice review that the Government commissioned. Surely the review crafted its recommendations in the expectation that responsibility for criminal justice and policing would be transferred to the Assembly and Executive. It argued in its report that a new appointments system would be needed as devolution took place. The key paragraph is 6.102, which states that
  "the factor which, above all, sways us in favour of recommending such a body is the imperative that if political responsibility for judicial appointments is to be devolved, the appointments process…must be clearly seen to be insulated from political influence."
  The report continues:
  "We do not believe that it would be feasible, particularly from the perspective of judicial independence, to leave significant discretion on appointments matters in the hands of Ministers on the Executive Committee."
  That approach of the review report was incorporated in the terms of the 2002 Act.
  However, if we are honest, we would admit that there is little or no prospect in the near future for the devolution of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. Although I regret it, there appears to be a diminishing prospect of any early return to devolved institutions. Following the Government's logic, I see no urgent need for a Bill allowing the establishment of a new system for judicial appointments ahead of devolution.
  Lembit Öpik: I am slightly concerned about what the hon. Gentleman just said. Does he accept that strategic decisions about the legal system should not be made on the grounds that we currently have a tactical difficulty in regard to devolution? That would set a precedent that would unquestionably be used by opponents of devolution in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Lidington: Strategic decisions on criminal justice were established by the Criminal Justice Review and the 2002 Act that followed it. The Bill's proposals are being produced with very little notice, apparently as a consequence of the joint declaration of 2003. It is those proposals, in my view, that fail the test of a strategic analysis of the criminal justice system that the hon. Gentleman wants to be applied.
  Clause 2 goes to the heart of the Bill. It requires those responsible for appointing lay members of the commission to try to ensure that membership is
  "reflective of the community in Northern Ireland."
  It could be argued, and was I think implicit in the Secretary of State's remarks, that the word "reflective" is an improvement on the term "representative", which was used in the 2002 Act; but we must see that change alongside the new duty in clause I that will rest with those appointing not just lay but judicial and professional members to ensure that the membership overall is reflective of the community. Nowhere in the Act was that duty laid in such a way on those responsible for judicial and professional appointments. Moreover, for the first time we see the imposition of term limits on not just lay but judicial members.
  The Government have, of course, been full of reassuring words. They say that this is all about putting more women and members of ethnic communities on to
  1548
  the bench. I have no quarrel with that aspiration, provided that appointments are made strictly on merit. I should like more women and members of ethnic minorities to seek successful careers in the law in Northern Ireland, and to gain places on the bench in due course. I fear, however, that no matter what the Secretary of State may intend, the Bill's wording may result in every appointment being pored over in an attempt to access its impact on the overall political and sectarian balance of the commission's membership.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Surely it would be impossible to achieve such a balance if those to whom positions were offered did not accept them.
  Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is probably right, but there are other problems too. If the commission's membership must indeed be reflective of the community, a number of its members will presumably have to come from a certain political tradition—that of Sinn Fein, which currently remains, in the Government's own words, "inextricably linked" to an illegal terrorist organisation, and which the Irish Republic's Minister of Justice has publicly accused of making money from organised crime. Worse, a similar kind of political analysis is likely to be applied to the commission's recommendations for the appointment of new judges. The duty to produce a judiciary that is reflective of the community in Northern Ireland surely contradicts the Government's declared commitment, which it continues to make, to the principle that judges should be appointed solely on merit. If the Bill is passed unamended, two contradictory principles will govern judicial appointments.
  Lest the Secretary of State think that this is just a complaint from a political opponent, let me refer him to the comments of one whose views I know the Government respect. On Second Reading of the Bill that became the 2002 Act, Lord Hutton said:
  "It is clearly vital that a judge should be appointed on merit alone and that appointments should not be influenced by political considerations. That is all the more important in the highly charged political atmosphere of Northern Ireland. If judges are not appointed on merit the administration of justice will suffer, as will public confidence in that administration." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 May 2002; Vol. 634, c. 969.]
  Let us consider the possible reasons for this Bill. It is, apparently, nothing to do with a problem over the quality of the judiciary in Northern Ireland; nor do the Government consider their 2002 Act to be in any way defective. The only reason for the Bill seems to be that the joint declaration of 2003 provided for it, but that declaration mentioned many other things. It spoke of the need for Sinn Fein to support the police. It said that all paramilitary groups should put their arms beyond use. Above all it said, in paragraph 13, that
  "paramilitarism and sectarian violence must be brought to an end, from whichever part of the community they come."
  That has not happened. Provisional Sinn Fein continues to boycott the Police Service. Guns and explosives remain in store. The Secretary of State himself has said in the last fortnight that the Provisional IRA has committed a "serious breach" of paragraph 13. Yet the Government's response has not been to impose sanctions against those who are allegedly responsible for kidnappings, for beatings or for sending fellow citizens

  1549
  into exile; rather it has been, through the Bill, to press ahead with changes to the criminal justice system that the republicans themselves have been active in demanding.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: It would be inaccurate to describe the Bill as in any way a concession as far as Sinn Fein, or indeed any party, is concerned. As the hon. Gentleman said, it arose from the joint declaration; but it also arose from a commitment made before that, at the time of the Good Friday agreement. We are moving ahead in terms of criminal justice, which I think is something that everyone wants. It is not a concession to anyone; it is part of an agreement. I know that my hon. Friends in the SDLP, for example, would take exception to the hon. Gentleman's views.
  Mr. Lidington: I am perfectly willing to concede that SDLP Members will take a principled position of support for the reforms being incorporated in the Bill.
  David Burnside: I am sure that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will agree that this would be better described as an SDLP Bill. The joint declaration did not, of course, have the consent of the Unionist population.
  Mr. Lidington: In pressing ahead with the Bill and giving it such high priority, the Government are making the mistake of letting themselves be seen to be making yet another one-sided concession in Northern Ireland, at a time when the major problem with the political process is the near despair of so many members of the Unionist community about the progress so far towards ending paramilitary activity. I think that the Bill will do nothing to reassure the thousands of decent people who desperately wanted the Good Friday agreement to succeed, and who believed the Prime Minister's handwritten pledges that it and all that followed would bring about a final end to terrorism—the acts of completion of which the joint declaration speaks.
  We need more from the Government than the words of condemnation at the beginning of the Secretary of State's speech. In the light of events of recent weeks, it is not enough to carry on as if nothing at all has changed and to conduct business as normal with militant republicans. A clear message must be sent to paramilitary groups, republican and loyalist, that they cannot expect to be treated as full democratic partners in Northern Ireland if they persist with paramilitary activity, which they agreed to forswear at the time of the Good Friday agreement.
  The Government should put the Bill on ice and replace it with a criminal justice Bill that deals with the immediate problems of crime and disorder in Northern Ireland. Their failure to address the priorities of the people of Northern Ireland is the reason why we intend to press our amendment tonight.
  2.11 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: I shall refer to two points that struck me forcibly in case I forget them.
  1550
  First, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred to racially motivated attacks, and he was right to do so because they are increasing. One of the difficulties is that people who are in or on the fringes of paramilitary groups carry out those attacks in such a way that many of those who suffer cannot receive compensation because the Chief Constable cannot give them Chief Constable certificates, which means that they cannot be recompensed through the Compensation Agency. The issue is serious, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Aylesbury raises it.
  Secondly, it is ironic that the Ulster Unionist party has remarkable confidence in the international monitoring commission and lacks confidence in a judicial appointments is commission made up of people from the north of Ireland—indeed, it opposes such a commission. Perhaps we should examine that irony in the context of this debate.
  I have advocated devolution of the powers of policing and criminal justice for a long time. In the 1970s, devolution—even administrative devolution—was a pipe dream, and to think about devolution of policing powers and criminal justice was a mild form of insanity. When I raised the issue in my party in the middle to late '70s, I was reminded that we were a sensible party that did and said sensible things, and that we hoped to remain that way. It shows how far we have come that we are once again legislating on such matters on the Floor of this House.
  I assure the House and the Secretary of State that I welcome the Bill, because some of the points that I make later may not indicate that. I support the concepts behind the Bill and want to support devolution, which is one of the key elements that we must address.
  What type of being is the body politic in Northern Ireland? It has administrative devolution for what are known as the normal Government Departments, a system of north-south arrangements and arrangements between Ireland north, Ireland south and Britain, but it does not have responsibility for the most important issues in its own life—sustaining the police service and the criminal justice system. It is an unfortunate orphan. Such devolution cannot survive because the body politic refuses to take the important issues and say, "Yes, we have confidence in devolution. We will take the good bits along with the bad bits because we have confidence in what is known as devolution and in the need for us to deal with policing and criminal justice."
  For too long, we have all, whatever our political point of view, had the luxury of criticising those who are responsible for such matters—those who have sat on these Benches down the years, those within the police and those within the judicial system. That we can take responsibility is a sign that devolution is a maturing political process. We should proceed with the Bill and with the devolution of powers.
  Mr. Dodds: What does the hon. Gentleman say to the many people in Northern Ireland who are concerned that if devolution were to proceed under the Belfast agreement arrangements the person in charge of policing and justice could be inextricably linked to a

  1551
  terrorist paramilitary organisation? How does that bolster confidence in justice and policing in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which brings me to my second broad point. Believe it or not, people within what would widely be called "the nationalist community" express concern that somebody from the Democratic Unionist party might end up as Minister for Justice. Believe it or not, some people who are on the DUP side of thinking express concern that one of the "others" — the "others" being the Ulster Unionist party—might end up in that post. One thing is sure; it will be one of us, and that person will have a more immediate relationship with the needs of the north of Ireland.
  I know that the Secretary of State will forgive me for saying this, and it applies to any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or, indeed, any Lord Chancellor: if we are ever to make a success of devolution, which means making a success of Northern Ireland, we must overcome these problems. The hon. Gentleman's point is valid: how does one hand over power in a devolutionary situation in which some participants are involved in paramilitarism? I honestly believe that one cannot hand over power in those circumstances.
  Power must be handed over into situation in which paramilitarism has ended and people have worked together for a period of time through devolution in other areas. In that case, devolution would be tried and tested and it would have been shown that, in the absence of paramilitarism and violence, the system—whatever it is—is workable and can be sustained. That is one of the harsh points that we must examine, because power cannot be handed over until that happens. That is all the more reason why I say to those who are involved in paramilitary activity—those in the republican movement and those in the loyalist organisations—that they are preventing the people of the north of Ireland from exercising the responsibility that they should be able to exercise in those crucially important roles. With their adherence to violence, they are standing in the way of the type of development that we are very capable of sustaining, whoever happens to be chosen to be the Minister responsible.
  Those people who say that they are in the political process but who are at the same time connected to violence and paramilitarism should hang their heads in shame. The unfortunate people who are kneecapped or shot dead, or treated as many people have been treated, are not the only victims; one of the other victims is the political process that many of us have spent a long time creating. When I look—from the perspective of many years of involvement—at what those organisations have done to what was painstakingly created over 35 years, I question their alleged patriotism, their alleged interest in the country in which we live and their commitment to a purely political way forward.
  I put those comments on record because it is incompatible to suggest that people can take responsibility for a justice and policing system at the same time as they have any relationship, contact or dealings with those who enforce their own strange form of policing. We talk about victims and I am glad the Secretary of State mentioned those people who serve on the policing partnership boards and who have been
  1552
  attacked. Seven have been attacked recently, some of them members of my party. Tom McBride, for example, yesterday suffered a pipe bomb attack on his house. Two members of my party who are councillors in my constituency were actually threatened across the floor of the council chamber, in the presence of the media and officials. It was not a mild threat: it was a threat of violence towards them and their families. I am not going to take that from such people, and nobody should have to take that from them. Our system should not have to take that from them either. Whatever we—I mean all of us here—disagree about, we should agree that we cannot allow a system in which good people are daily and weekly sacrificed on the altar of the atavism of what is called—it is a misnomer—republicanism. In the same way, good people in the Unionist community have been sacrificed by loyalist paramilitaries. They killed 13 people last year and were involved in 145 shootings. Like the republican movement, the loyalist paramilitaries are involved in racketeering and they actually put a lady who was over 100 years old out of her house. The mind boggles when one considers the sum total of their acts, but that is what we have to deal with.
  We cannot deal with those problems from the security of the Benches here. If they are to be dealt with successfully, it will be when the political process reaches a point at which devolution is possible. I make a request of the Government—seriously and without a hint of cynicism—that they should not make this issue a bargaining point somewhere down the line. They should not allow the political process to reach a point at which the devolution of powers in the Bill becomes a price demanded by those who will not, at this stage, abide by the rules of democracy. I make that point because I have seen that happen too often, and anybody who values the political process cannot tolerate it.
  We use the term "peace process" glibly these days, but as Spinoza reminds us, peace is not just an absence of war but an attitude of mind—a disposition towards benevolence, confidence and justice. It is that justice that must be part of peace, part of this Bill and part of devolution, in a way that proves and sustains the integrity of what the Bill will do.
  I make those broad points because we must put the Bill in context. However, I shall move on to the Bill itself. This is the fifth time in five years that we have considered primary legislation on policing and justice.
  Lady Hermon: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who is making a compelling speech, but would he reflect on the happy hours that we spent in Committee on the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002? He tabled amendments, which the Government accepted, to the effect that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should act jointly. Bearing in mind what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the difficulty and the slow pace of the devolution of justice and policing, does he now regret that that phrase was written into that Act so often? It will put off the devolution of justice and policing for a long time to come.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank that hon. Lady for that point, but I do not regret my actions. Indeed, one of the criticisms I shall make later is that the commitment on the roles of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—whoever

  1553
  they may be—has been diluted from what was agreed at Hillsborough. It is essential that the requirement for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to act jointly should be in pole position, because without it there would be no devolution—only the giving of some powers by the Government here to an Administration in the north of Ireland, and that could appear disparaging.
  As I was saying, the Bill is the fifth piece of legislation on policing and justice—we have had three on policing and two on criminal justice issues.
  Mr. Donaldson: Could the hon. Gentleman elaborate on the agreement at Hillsborough? I am not clear to which agreement he refers. Who agreed to the proposal that he mentions?
  Mr. Mallon: It was agreed between the two Governments and subsequently became known as the joint declaration. Like the hon. Gentleman, I was not present at Hillsborough, so I cannot say in what context it was agreed, but when two sovereign Governments write such an agreement in a joint declaration that they will use as a cornerstone for future legislation, one expects that they will tell the truth. I am prepared to accept that—and I would recommend it to the hon. Gentleman, too.
  I fully accept that most of these points derive from what was not dealt with in the previous primary legislation and had to be squeezed out of the Government at Hillsborough. The Secretary of State put it more gently, but that is the reality. I was concerned about the reference to Sinn Fein, because its reasons were nothing to do with the quality of legislation. Our reason was to get the legislation in accord with the recommendations of the review. There is a huge difference, and that is why we are considering this legislation, just as we had to consider policing, because an untold mess was made of it for the wrong reasons. Patten was diluted, and we had to come again to the issue. The criminal justice review was diluted, and we have had to come again today to the issue.
  Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the concept of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Since when was it agreed that the joint declaration would be the cornerstone of any legislation in this House?
  Mr. Mallon: It was agreed by the representatives of the British Government at Hillsborough. It is in the joint declaration. I recommend to the hon. Gentleman that he reads the declaration made by the two Governments.
  Mr. Donaldson: We were not a party to that.
  Mr. Mallon: I was not there. I cannot say whether your party agreed to it. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon—your ex-party.
  The reality is that the two Governments made an agreement that brought what was previously legislated into line with the criminal justice review. Now let us get on with it and get it right. I welcome the legislation, which is very important for a number of reasons.
  Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill is to bring the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 into
  1554
  line with the criminal, justice review. Will he consider the question of the judicial appointments commission, and in particular the provision in paragraph 6.102 of the review, which makes it absolutely clear that the overriding reason for having the commission is the prospect of devolution, so the 2002 Act is on this point entirely in accordance with the review, but the Bill is not?
  Mr. Mallon: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, and of course he can stress that when he makes his contribution, but now I want to describe three broad areas in which I am very much in favour of the Bill.
  The Bill imposes a duty to ensure that the judiciary reflects the community. I am not talking about good judges or bad judges. There is no implication that, because a person is Catholic, a Protestant, a Unionist, a nationalist, DUP, SDLP or whatever, they are any better or worse as a judge. I am saying that it is essential, especially in a divided community, that the whole business of criminal justice is not the preserve of the lawyers—it is much too serious to leave it simply to the lawyers, much as I respect them.
  Some of the people I knew over the years who became judges—people I was very friendly with—were killed, by the same organisation that I was talking about earlier. I can think of four. Some who became judges were previously Unionist Ministers and Attorneys—General, and were excellent judges, so I make no point about that, but I do want to see a judiciary that reflects the wider society and does not come from a religious, academic or social stratum that excludes others. How many judges came from outside the grammar school system in Northern Ireland? I bet if we looked it up—I confess immediately that I have not—we would not find one. Nor would we find representatives of the ethnic communities. Nor are there any ladies—there are no women, I believe, and if there are they are certainly hiding their light under a bushel. There is a whole wide concept of making the judiciary reflective of the community that is not tied into political or religious views. It is much wider and more important than that.
  The Bill imposes a duty on criminal justice agencies to have regard to international human rights standards. I think that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) will want to come in on that point—no, thankfully, she has not made the point that she was about to make, because I do not have the answer, but I will have it at a certain point. Perhaps I could do a Secretary of State for now.
  The third area to which I draw attention is the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The fact that the Bill deals with that, too, is welcome. All three matters should have been dealt with in the original legislation, as the criminal justice review required, but for long-standing reasons they were not.
  Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the code for prosecutors is already legislated for in the 2002 Act. The international guidance is already on the statute book, so I am intrigued as to what further international guidance would be relevant to the criminal justice system.
  Mr. Mallon: The hon. Lady will have to wait for the Minister's winding-up speech or the Committee stage to get a definitive reply to that.

  1555
  I want to cover two further crucial points. The commitment made by the two Governments at Hillsborough, in line with the review, is that there would be "a requirement" on the DPP
  "to refer to the Police Ombudsman cases of alleged police misconduct discovered in his casework"
  That is a simple commitment: any time the DPP comes across an allegation, he has to refer it to the ombudsman, but the Bill, like its predecessor, does not do that, and instead the DPP has to refer cases only when it appears to him that there might have been some wrongdoing. He can decide not to refer allegations simply because he does not believe them, even though it is the police ombudsman's job, not his, to investigate such matters.
  Why does this matter? It is crucial, so I will give an example, because it is a vital protection for the process of law and for the community. In 1991, William Stobie was charged with the possession of weapons. On being charged, he threatened to reveal that he had warned the police that the UDA was going to murder someone, and had told them where the weapon that was to be used was. The police made no move. Pat Finucane was shot dead with that weapon in his own house, on a Sunday, in front of his family. Once Stobie had threatened to reveal all, what happened? Charges against him were dropped by the then DPP. Of course, there was no police ombudsman at the time, but no explanation was ever given, and a cloud has hung over the DPP's office ever since. Had the law then been as we want it to be, and as it should have been, the DPP would have had to refer Stobie's allegation for independent investigation—by whomsoever. That is why this issue matters, and it could not matter more. Indeed, had that law been in place, we might—might—have saved lives and avoided some of the issues referred to in Judge Cory's report.
  The Government gave another simple commitment: that in the respect of the appointment of senior judges, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister
  "will make recommendations to the Prime Minister, who in turn will recommend appointments on this basis"
  But of course, the Bill does not say that; it leaves out the phrase "on this basis". Because of the way in which the provision is phrased, the Prime Minister can consult the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and proceed to ignore their recommendations. As an ex-Deputy First Minister—I will never be one again—I do not want any First Minister or Deputy First Minister in the north of Ireland to be treated in that way. When they make recommendations, and when they jointly agree that it will not be the right of a Prime Minister to act otherwise, I want those recommendations to stick. In that regard, the Bill needs to be put right. Intriguingly, such a provision is included in the explanatory notes but excluded from the Bill. I want it to be included.
  I finish with a broad point about the Cory report. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and I have said in the House on a number of occasions, how can we expect and demand of others that they live up to what is required of them in the agreement—requirements to which they are committed—when, in effect, the Government have yet to fulfil their responsibilities as outlined at Weston Park? I was there, and I have the piece of paper on which the Prime Minister gave the following absolute commitment:
  1556
  "In the event that a public inquiry is recommended in any case, the Government will implement that recommendation."
  I have listened to various explanations from Government sources, but why has that not happened? Why are the Government not honouring their commitment in respect of this crucial matter? How can we point the finger at others for not honouring their commitments when, in effect, one of the agreement's guarantors is not honouring theirs? I do not want to labour the point, which I make in a broad context. There is no chance whatsoever of fostering the attitude within the community that would allow us to take over the responsibility for the whole issue of justice and policing until that commitment is honoured.
  I feel deeply about this legislation. In terms of those who are not allowing others in the community to move the political process forward, I feel deeply that that has got to end. Unless we start to understand the fears and apprehensions in the minds of others—be they Unionist minds, Democratic Unionist party minds, republican minds or nationalist minds—we will not get to the heart of this problem. The awfulness of what the paramilitary groups are doing is preventing people from understanding the problems, in terms of justice and policing, of those who will be their partners in a devolutionary situation. The paramilitaries are again killing the disposition towards benevolence and confidence that can deliver justice. To the enormity of the crimes that the paramilitaries have committed over the years, we can add that of preventing the good people in the north of Ireland from taking control of matters that are crucially important to their lives, so that the atavistic requirements of those paramilitary groups can be served before the needs of others.
  2.45 pm
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: In introducing the Bill this afternoon, the Secretary of State properly reminded us of the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland in the past six years. We on this side of the water have always regarded that as an exercise in Northern Ireland's catching up with developments in Great Britain. Ironically, after the shenanigans in the other place on Monday night, we have the prospect of Northern Ireland taking the lead, with England and Wales being left to follow.
  Liberal Democrats are pleased to give the Bill a broad welcome. We have already made our attitude to it clear in the other place, and the Minister will be aware that we are not uncritical of it. Improvements have been made in the course of discussions in the other place, and notwithstanding the Secretary of State's comments about some of those changes, we hope that the Government will think carefully before they seek to bulldoze the amendments away, and that they may be preserved. There is still scope for improving the Bill, and we Liberal Democrats will play our role in that. If I have any criticism, it is that it is something of a hotch-potch. Bills that pull in little bits in respect of bail, youth justice and courts are slightly unhelpful, but we are where we are and we have what we have.
  I should make it clear at the outset that we will not support the Conservatives' reasoned amendment. If one regards the Bill as part of a process and considers it in its full political context, it is somewhat perplexing that they

  1557
  should table a reasoned amendment in this particular form. I read with great care the reasoned points made by Lord Glentoran in the other place on Second Reading on 17 December. He made it clear, in a fairly measured way, that there are certain aspects of the Bill with which he does not agree. There was no hint, however, that a reasoned amendment such as this would be tabled in this place, and I am afraid that the only conclusion that I can draw is that we are now dealing with matters such as judicial appointments in a slightly more febrile atmosphere than existed on 16 December, when their lordships received the Bill for consideration on Second Reading.
  The tabling of today's reasoned amendment perhaps has more to do with what happened in the other place on Monday night than with anything in the present Bill. I make these comments with some hesitation, because this situation is particularly regrettable. The Bill does not exist in isolation—it is part of a process and has emerged from the criminal justice review and last year's joint declaration. We have supported that process, and the Conservatives previously supported it, adopting a non-partisan approach.
  When the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) was calling the shots, that approach changed. I had hoped that with the appointment of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) we might see some progress in the other direction. Indeed, for some time I had considerable confidence that that would happen. Unfortunately, however, the hon. Gentleman seems to have lost sight—or perhaps others pulling his strings have lost sight—of the bigger picture of which the Bill is part, and accordingly we have the amendment, which the Liberal Democrats cannot support.
  I wish to deal first with the question of the independent commission on judicial appointments. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) effectively asked the Secretary of State for a report-back on how the system is working north of the border, where we have had an independent appointments body for about three years. I must be honest and say that I do not follow these matters with quite the same interest as I did previously, but my general impression is that it is working exceptionally well. Certainly when we consider the appointments that have been made, both to the College of Justice and to the shrieval bench north of the border, we do not recognise any of the hares set running in the speeches of the hon. Member for Aylesbury and others in the other place about the creation of an independent commission.
  We have a system to which the public can look with a degree of confidence. It can be seen that one does not become a senator of the College of Justice or a sheriff north of the border simply because of the school one went to, who one shared a flat with at university, who one happened to be in practice with, whose stables one was part of or any of the other matters about which suspicions always lurked in the past when the system was such that names emerged from a fog at the centre of which was the Lord Advocate.
  Lady Hermon: Does the non-statutory judicial appointments board in Scotland have the power to delegate even its appointments procedures to a
  1558
  committee or sub-committee, or does it operate as a board? The hon. Gentleman must know from the earlier provisions in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 that the judicial appointments commission to be set up in Northern Ireland will have the power to sub-delegate its work, including appointments, to committees, which will include people who are not even members of the JAC itself.
  Mr. Carmichael: To be candid, I do not know the exact set-up in Scotland. However, applying first principles to it, I note that the hon. Lady says that it is a non-statutory body, so effectively it has power delegated from the Scottish Ministers. I imagine that those powers will be subject to the principle "delegatus non potest delegare"—one cannot delegate a power of which one has oneself been a recipient. Therefore, I imagine that it does not have that power. No doubt others will have applied their minds to that matter more carefully than I have. The power that exists under the 2002 Act is there, so I do not understand the parallel that the hon. Lady seeks to draw to my attention in that regard.
  Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman said that the Scottish judicial appointments board had done a very good job. He was very complimentary about it. However, there is not a strict parallel with Northern Ireland, because the proposed judicial appointments commission in Northern Ireland will operate on a completely different basis. Those who have confidence that it will make appointments perceived to be much more independent than those made to date must look again at the power that it will have to sub-delegate its powers to appoint.
  Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. I follow her point. However, it is perhaps for discussion in Committee rather than being an objection to the principle of the establishment of a judicial appointments commission in the first instance, which is essentially what we are dealing with on Second Reading.
  The fact that although we have such a body in Scotland the sky has not fallen in and the world continues to turn on its axis should give some comfort to the Cassandras we have heard. The hon. Member for Aylesbury said that there were two contradictory principles—that the principle that the judiciary should be reflective of the community was somehow in conflict with the merits of the Bill. I take a rather higher view of the wider community than perhaps the hon. Gentleman does. I do not see why there is automatically a contradiction between the two principles. I do not see why a judiciary drawn from the widest possible range of the community should in any way be lacking in merit. That perhaps is the difference between me as a Liberal and the hon. Gentleman an as a Conservative.
  I defy anybody to say that the existing system, which relies on a lack of transparency and carries with it the suspicion that it works on the basis of nods and winks, is entirely merit-based. Having seen the performance of a number of their lordships appointed under that system, I certainly hope that there was some other

  1559
  reason than merit for their appointment, because merit alone could not possibly account for their appointment: either that, or the assessment of then merit was poor.
  Mr. John Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I speak purely for myself these days, and not on behalf of my party. Will he not concede at least the possibility that if the best 20 judges were selected to serve a particular community they might all turn out to be Catholics, or for that matter, to be left-handed? Surely the hon. Gentleman will concede that much?
  Mr. Carmichael: Before I answer the hon. Gentleman's point, may I tell him that we miss his contributions to Northern Ireland matters. In the Committee corridor, we often hanker after the days of the Taylor test and we miss the Taylor doctrine. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is back with us dealing with Northern Ireland business.
  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, that on an objective analysis, however the assessment is made, one could have 20 Roman Catholics, Presbyterians or left-handers, but one wonders just how well such a bench could serve the community as a whole, which is what we are dealing with today.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has been very kind to me this afternoon, but I must ask him this. Surely, once it has been accepted that the best 20 judges might all be Catholics, if the hon. Gentleman does not find that that would sit well with the acceptance of that bench by the community, is he not then intellectually already in the province of quotas?
  Mr. Carmichael: Absolutely not. The difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is that I believe that we should examine the judiciary as a whole, rather than as 20 individual judges. We have to assess how the judiciary as a whole can best serve society in the widest sense. Twenty judges who are all left-handed, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian or whatever would not inspire confidence among the right-handed or ambidextrous part of the community, so they are not serving the wider community well.
  Lembit Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that—[Interruption.] Actually, I happen to be left-handed. Although what the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) suggests is theoretically possible, does my hon. Friend agree that the prospect of having 20 Catholic left-handers chosen by accident is infinitesimal? In the real world, there seems to have been a lack of faith in the selection process in the past when improbable percentages came about, and people did not accept that the appointments were purely on merit.
  Mr. Carmichael: My hon. Friend is right to lure me back into the real world and away from the world of the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr Taylor), tempting though it is.
  Mr. Pound rose—
  Mr. Carmichael: While we are on the subject, I would certainly enjoy a small sojourn into the world of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound).
  Mr. Pound: I thank the hon. Orcadian for giving way. Surely the fact that 50 per cent. of the entire Liberal Democrat Front Bench is left-handed—or, as we would say, sinister—shows that such things can happen!
  Mr. Carmichael: I do not think that you have been listening during the last few minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am absolutely delighted about that—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, whatever direction the Deputy Speaker is looking in, he is always listening. It would now be appropriate to get back to the meat of the business.
  Mr. Carmichael: I apologise wholeheartedly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for momentarily forgetting the full panoply of the powers at your disposal, and I am certainly more than happy to return to the subject of the Bill.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The fact that 50 per cent. of their Front Benchers are right-handed and 50 per cent. left-handed shows that the Liberal Democrats can look both ways at the same time. Nevertheless, does the hon. Gentleman not accept—we will have to discuss the matter in detail in Committee—that there is clearly a tension between appointment on merit and appointment that is reflective of the community as a whole? The judgments that have to be made are difficult, but the Secretary of State was quite clear, in his introduction to the Bill, that merit was the first consideration and that being reflective of the community was secondary. Does the hon. Gentleman not concede that there is surely a tension between them?
  Mr. Carmichael: Of course there is a tension, and it is a perfectly healthy, normal and natural tension. However, I do not believe that it is a tension that defeats the general principle of the establishment of the commission in the first place. My view is different from that expressed in the reasoned amendment, which the hon. Gentleman is inviting his colleagues to support this evening. We can only have the discussion that the hon. Gentleman said was necessary in Committee if the reasoned amendment is rejected.
  Mr. McNamara rose—
  Mr. Carmichael: I feel that I have already given way more than is healthy.
  Mr. Pound: There is a new Deputy Speaker in the Chair to offend.
  Mr. Carmichael: That being the case, I shall try to truncate my remarks and allow the hon. Gentleman, who is as capable as I am at antagonising, to speak.
  I want to move on. Clause 6, which deals with influencing a prosecutor, takes us into territory that the Government often visit—criminalising conduct that is already criminal. I asked the Secretary of State how the provision differed from attempting to pervert the course

  1561
  of justice, and he provided a lengthy answer about people who might want to write to a prosecutor to give reasons why someone should not be the subject of criminal proceedings, but also referred to other sorts of conduct that are not currently criminal. I am afraid that, by the end of the Secretary of State's answer, I was none the wiser; in fact, it will be no surprise to any hon. Member in the House if I say that I was not even better informed. [Interruption.] If the Minister can explain the difference between the offence in the clause and attempting to pervert the course of justice, we will listen carefully. I see no particular need for the clause, so it is for the Government to explain what they hope to achieve by it.
  Clause 7 deals with providing guidance to criminal justice agencies on human rights standards. On my initial reading, I thought it quite sensible, but the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) subsequently asked a couple of questions about what international standards would be the subject of the guidance. From my own experience, having reflected on the conditions of prisoners on death row in America, I know that there are a number of international conventions to which the UK is party—for example, on the treatment of prisoners—that might well fall under the wider ambit of the clause. That is just my best guess; I hope that the Minister will provide something more specific in his reply.
  On clause 12, we heard an interesting rewriting of history from the hon. Member for Aylesbury on the issues of segregation and political designation. I thought the hon. Gentleman received good advice from the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) who I thought told him as he dug himself energetically into a hole—I hope that the Hansard report will catch it—to "move on". Eventually, the hon. Member for Aylesbury took his hon. Friend's advice.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may have heard sotto voce, I do not recall and I do not believe that I told my hon. Friend to move on. I would not dare give him such an instruction.
  Mr. Pound: Did you say, "Move on"?
  Mr. Carmichael: If the hon. Member for Cotswold tells us that he did not tell his hon. Friend to "move on", he may have just uttered the words at random for whatever reason.
  Lembit Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) did not advise his hon. Friend to move on, he should have done? As I recall, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) claimed—amazingly, in my view—that the Conservative Government had worked to remove segregation. Does my hon. Friend recall that they did not do a thing to stop segregation? In fact, segregation was powerfully established by 1997, so it is neither reasonable nor plausible for Conservative Members to rewrite history on such a core issue.
  Mr. Carmichael: I thank my hon. Friend, whose recollection of events more accurately mirrors my own, for his intervention —and I see other hon. Members who have a longer pedigree than me on that matter also nodding in agreement. Now that my hon. Friend has put the record straight, we might just leave it and move on, but my noble Friends in the other place expressed a concern about ensuring that the matter of separation should be tied to individual prisoners, rather than on the basis of classification. If classes of prisoners are to be separated, it is difficult to see the distinction between that and segregation.
  We were pleased to support Lord Hylton's amendment—
  Mr. John Taylor: I would like to correct a misapprehension—inadvertent, I am sure—on the part of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who said that Conservative Governments had done nothing about segregation in Northern Ireland. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was a Member of the House at the time, but I remember, because I was the Whip, the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, with its quota; and timetables for the workplace. I was here; I am not imagining the Committee stage of a long Bill. The Act was difficult to get through, but we did it.
  Mr. Carmichael: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not have the benefit of hearing his hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and the exchanges that punctuated his speech, because I do not think that the point that he is making is about segregation within prisons, which was the point at issue. If he wishes to explain his point at greater length, no doubt he can catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am mindful that others want to speak, and I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion.
  As I was saying, the Liberal Democrats in the other place were pleased to support an amendment tabled by Lord Hylton, the chair of the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, which was designed to tighten the clause by wording it as follows:
  "If it appears to the Secretary of State that, because of his serious misconduct, or, with his consent, for his own protection"
  a person should be transferred to England or Wales. That is similar to amendments that we expect to table on Report, and I hope that the Government will give them fair consideration before then.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter rose—
  Mr. Carmichael: I am sorry, but I really do want to bring my remarks to close. I have been fairly generous in giving way to hon. Members.
  There are several gems in the Bill. The provisions on bail seem entirely sensible, as does the power for arrest without warrant for driving while disqualified. On the whole, the Liberal Democrats are pleased to support the Bill; we think that it is an important contribution to a process of which we are generally supportive. We shall have more to say at a later stage, but today we are content to support the Government.
  3.12 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Before I start on the main part of my speech, I should like to refer to some of the remarks that have been made in the debate, especially by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), in the context of the attitude of Conservative Front Benchers to the Bill. With the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill, the whole idea was that merit alone would matter. For any job or job application, nothing but merit would count.
  Mr. Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McNamara: May I finish making my point? Then I shall certainly give way.
  I sat through most of the proceedings on that Bill, and I do not remember it being such a tremendous fight for the then Government to get it through. As I recall, it was given a very fair wind by the then opposition, to such an extent that the Government accepted many of our amendments, and we helped the Bill along.
  Mr. Trimble: I was most impressed listening to the hon. Gentleman emphasising the idea that in employment, merit should be all. When did he change his mind?
  Mr. McNamara: I have not changed my mind; I wanted affirmative action programmes. I was simply saying that the Government at the time said that it was all merit, merit,merit—yet now the Conservatives are decrying that idea.
  The joint declaration was part of the tortuous negotiations that have followed the Good Friday agreement. That itself reflected a compromise resulting from political negotiations between the parties, with the assistance of the British and Irish Governments—a process supported by the United States, the institutions of the European Union, non-governmental organisations, Churches, trade unions and an array of state and non-state bodies.
  In the course of those negotiations, when it was felt that matters required further thought and consideration for the sake of building trust and confidence in the process, the task was outsourced. It was taken on by a diversity of individuals forming independent commissions of unimpeachable integrity. Membership of those bodies required expertise and vision to take the project through, plus courage and, some might say, unimaginable perseverance.
  In discussing the delivery of criminal justice in Northern Ireland, we must pay tribute to the work of the Patten commission on policing, and to the criminal justice review team, which together supplied the template for a system that would be an international model for defending and promoting respect for human rights and upholding the rule of law.
  One offshoot of that was the establishment of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Mrs. Nuala O'Loan, who is now in that office, demonstrated at an international conference in Belfast last November that that Northern Ireland institution is now regarded throughout the world as a model, an exemplar and a leader in civilian oversight of the police and police accountability.
  1564
  When they were fulfilling their responsibility to introduce legislation on policing, the Government were warned that the drafts did not meet the requirements of the Good Friday agreement or of the Patten commission. When that first happened, we were laughed out of court, but their first policing Bill emasculated the Patten report, and three years later, Ministers were back with a second Bill to redress the shortcomings of the first. On criminal justice, Ministers were again warned that the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, which became the 2002 Act, did not meet all the expectations. Two years later, we are back again with another Bill.

  My noble Friend Baroness Amos has referred to that as a matter of steady evolutionary progress, a journey of reform and modernisation. It was not; it was three years of wasted opportunities. Each time a Government fail to meet their commitments or modify them, or seem to be swaying one way or the other, they undermine trust and confidence in the process as a whole. That is the Government's share of responsibility for the crisis in which the process now finds itself.
  I welcome the successful conclusion to the negotiations at Weston Park and the joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments published subsequently. In so far as the Bill introduces measures set out in the declaration, it is to be welcomed, and I do welcome a great deal of it. However, I feel that it does not go far enough.
  On accountability, I do not feel that there is sufficient transparency in the appointment or the exercise of the responsibilities of the Director of Public Prosecutions. As for the composition, I do not feel that the systems in place are sufficiently robust to ensure that the criminal justice system reflects, and is seen to reflect at all levels, the community that it serves. On ethos, I do not feel that sufficient progress has been made in transforming the image, symbols and traditional practices of the criminal justice system to create what Patten looked for—a sense of shared ownership of the system across the divided community.
  Those issues still have to be addressed if we are to succeed in completing the process of devolution—and I want that to succeed. I welcome the Government's decision to bring forward the introduction of the judicial appointments commission in advance of the devolution of justice powers. In the light of past legislation that failed to meet expectations, I believe that it is important to put our commitment to openness, transparency and accountability beyond doubt. By putting it in statute, we underline the Government's perseverance and determination to see that devolution is returned on the principles of the Good Friday agreement.
  I also welcome the proposal for a programme of action to focus on equality issues that affect judicial appointments and commitments to establish a consultative forum. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State can assure me that the forum will also include members of non-governmental organisations and community support groups.
  Of course, not every aspect of change requires primary legislation. I am pleased that the Government have been persuaded of the need for a justice oversight commissioner. That was the result of pressure from colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party and on the Labour Benches. That pressure has worked, to a limited degree.

  1565
  Clause 5 deals with the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions and provides that matters of police malpractice should be referred to the ombudsman. However, as I pointed out in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the clause does not go as far as was promised in the joint declaration. The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 leaves the DPP with a discretion in such matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) noted, if examples of police malpractice had been passed directly to someone similar to the proposed new ombudsman, some of the terrible things that have happened in Northern Ireland might have been avoided.
  Clause 5 confers excessive discretion on the DPP to decide whether a matter must be referred to the ombudsman. The review recommended that
  "a duty be placed on the prosecutor to ensure that any allegations of malpractice by the police are fully investigated."
  Clause 5 does not do that. It is quite proper that the DPP should retain responsibility for making decisions about prosecutions, but his duty to ensure effective investigation requires that his own suspicions, or allegations that are brought to his attention, should be referred automatically to the ombudsman.
  Clause 7 is entitled
  "Guidance for criminal justice organisations on human rights standards".
  It has raised a number of interesting questions already, and I wait to hear what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will say when he sums up. However, in the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we have been examining the matter, and have asked the Government to detail which international covenants and agreements in respect of human rights they have signed up to and those with which they have had problems. For example, the Government have not agreed to all the protocols in the European convention on human rights. Some have suggested that it is not quite accurate to say that Britain is a paragon of virtue when it comes to international standards of human rights, given the 13 people presently being held under maximum security without proper trial.
  In many respects, our system can bear examination according to the best standards in human rights. I hope that such an examination is carried out properly. That is why I do not understand why the Government say that it will be for Attorney-General for Northern Ireland to issue guidance to the criminal justice agencies on the exercise of their functions in a manner consistent with relevant international standards. It is a useful proposal, but I do not understand why the wording used is considered better than a requirement to have "due regard" for a list of relevant standards, which could be included as a schedule to the Bill. Providing that the agencies must comply with a list issued by the Attorney-General is not as full a provision as the joint declaration led people to expect.
  Clause 7(8) exempts the prosecution service from having any regard to human rights guidance issued by the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland where it would be inconsistent with the code of practice issued under section 37 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Given that section 37 is meant to meet those
  1566
  standards, I do not understand why the exemption is proposed. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will explain why the code of practice for the prosecution service should be singled out in that way, or why it should be permitted to be inconsistent with guidance on inter national human rights standards issued by the Attorney-General.
  I have already complimented the Government on appointing the justice oversight commissioner, but I want to turn to another matter that arises by way of background to the Bill. In his first report of December 2003, Lord Clyde noted that there appeared to be significant delays in implementing recommendations 5 and 6 of the criminal justice review on equity monitoring.
  Equity monitoring is an extremely important aspect of criminal justice reform in Northern Ireland and crucial to building confidence in the system. Both the criminal justice review implementation plans confer lead responsibilities for equity monitoring on the criminal justice board, but I hope that the Minister of State will clarify the matter when he winds up. Lord Clyde states in his report that the board intends to publish the first results on equity monitoring only in 2008–09—an enormous length of time after the board's establishment. The matter requires detailed explanation.
  In the languages of the review, equity monitoring consists of
  "effective equity monitoring of the workforce and of job applicants"
  as well as
  "monitoring, with a view to recording, any potential differential treatment of people who pass through the criminal justice process or are affected by it."
  I see no reason why it should not be possible to publish a breakdown of figures for the work force of each criminal justice agency well before 2009, which will be long after I have left this House.
  I cannot understand either why the board should be treated in that way, when all other private and public employers have a responsibility to produce their plans for equity monitoring. In such a sensitive area, it is wrong for there to be so long a delay. Lord Clyde provides a religious breakdown of the criminal justice division of the Northern Ireland Office as it was in 2002, but it seems that the same is not possible for the board.
  With regard to the criminal justice division, when will the figures for 2003 be available? We are also entitled to ask for publication of dates and statistics for all the other criminal justice agencies, such as the public prosecution service.
  Clause 4 deals with the appointments of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lords Justices of Appeal. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh has already raised the matter, and I do not want to waste the House's time, but the updated implementation plan stated that the Prime Minister would make the appointments
  "based on the recommendations of the First and Deputy First Minister".
  However, the Bill seems is to give the Prime Minister carte blanche to impose any person that he wants. It provides only that he has to "consider" a recommendation made

  1567
  by those Ministers: he does not have to accept it. Presumably, after he has spoken to the Lord Chief Justice, he will be able to go outside their recommendations, even though the whole point of the Bill was to give control of and responsibility for the justice system to the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives. I thought that giving people in Northern Ireland a sense that they belonged to the system and owned it was to have been part and parcel of the proposals.
  I welcome much that is in the Bill and trust that much more will be improved in Committee. It is regrettable that, once again, the Government, having set off with good intentions, succumbed to temptation along the way, left the true path and had to be dragged back by the logic of the Good Friday agreement and of what was accepted in the various undertakings that they gave, which were encompassed at Weston Park and in the implementation plan. I hope that this will be the last time that the Government have to come back to the House with further amendments to legislation that they originally said was the finest example of the implementation of the Good Friday agreement.
  3.30 pm
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: Normally, when major legislation on criminal justice and the reform of the courts has been passed, the Government allow a period of time to pass so that the various changes can settle and bed in, and we can consider how they are operating in practice. Yet a mere two years after the passage of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, we are considering a further measure on the implementation of the justice system in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, as other Members have pointed out, the Bill follows three recent pieces of primary legislation on policing in Northern Ireland.
  Many of the provisions of the 2002 Act are not yet in force. Legislation for England and Wales, which could also apply to Northern Ireland, is introduced in the other place, with the difficulties that have already been mentioned. What is the Government's motivation in their rush to introduce legislation? The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and others have given us the answer. They have referred not to what should be the driving force for the measure—the interests of justice and the efficient and effective delivery of justice for people—but to the delivery of commitments given by the Government, as part of the political process arising from the Belfast agreement, in consultation and agreement with the Dublin Government and certain other parties in Northern Ireland. In my view, that is not the right and proper way to introduce legislation on such a crucial issue.
  Such legislation should not be based on political considerations and political agreements hammered out after hours of negotiations between parties for party political reasons but on what is right and proper for the delivery of a good and effective criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. That should be the guiding principle, yet today, time and again, we have heard contributions that show that the driving force for the measure was Weston Park, the Belfast agreement, the joint declaration and the various reviews that have arisen from those agreements.
  1568
  That is part of our problem. There is no better illustration of our fears and concerns about the politicisation of the criminal justice system and of the danger of political interference than the driving force for the Bill. We are yet again debating a measure that has arisen from the joint declaration—from commitments entered into by the two Governments and the other parties that agreed the process of negotiations that led to the joint declaration. That is why we are debating this Bill so soon after the 2002 Act—because of commitments entered into as part of the joint declaration.
  The joint declaration, flowing as it does from the Belfast agreement process, is part of the attempt by the Governments—indeed, a hallmark of the process since 1998—to buy the acquiescence of certain parties, and the republican movement in particular, through concessions. The Governments want to involve those parties and to get them where the Governments want them, but they are doing that by offering more and more concessions. When those concessions do not work, the Governments offer yet more concessions. That is what the joint declaration is all about.
  Throughout that process, events have shown that it does not work—especially recently. Terrorists and those allied to them pocket the concessions, but so far they have demonstrated no willingness to move to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The reason that there has been such an erosion of public confidence in so many aspects of the political process in Northern Ireland is that, time and time again, concessions given as part of the Belfast agreement process to parties allied to terrorists and paramilitaries have been pocketed, yet those parties have not been prepared to commit to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
  The Tohill incident is but the latest manifestation. The republican movement talks a good game on peace and democracy, yet all the time it remains wedded to violence, to the terrorist machine that is the IRA, to holding on to its stockpile of weaponry and to carrying out crimes in broad daylight on the streets of Belfast, if it can get away with that. That is the issue for the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland and that is what concerns them about the Government introducing legislation such as this at this time. Why do we constantly introduce legislation and take decisions in this place to fulfil commitments arising from the joint declaration, the Belfast agreement and all the rest of it, when it is clear that the republican movement and Sinn Fein in particular are not prepared to commit to exclusively peaceful and democratic means?
  Both the Belfast agreement and the joint declaration, in which the Bill originates, envisaged the devolution of policing and justice powers to Northern Ireland. Although devolution of at least some elements of policing and justice is desirable if appropriate institutions and arrangements are in place in Northern Ireland, it would be wholly unacceptable in the context of the current arrangements under the Belfast agreement. Indeed, there is no doubt that devolution of such powers in those circumstances would only make things worse.
  Appropriate arrangements may be made at some point in the future; we shall have to wait to see what the discussions and negotiations bring forth. However, I reiterate the point I made to the hon. Member for Newry

  1569
  and Armagh (Mr. Mallon): the prospect that anyone who is associated with, or inextricably linked to, a terrorist organisation should have any role, or any say or control, in policing or justice in Northern Ireland is wholly unacceptable. However, there is no doubt that the provisions of the joint declaration envisaged that a member of Sinn Fein-IRA could be in that position. Not only would that send a very bad message, it would be a travesty. It would be deplorable not just for the Unionist community, but for the nationalist community as well if someone from that background were put in a position of control over policing and justice. That simply cannot happen. I am reminded of the words of the Minister for Justice in the Irish Republic.
  Mr. Mallon: Just to be clear, is the hon. Gentleman in effect saying that, if Sinn Fein cut all its ties with paramilitary groups, got rid of its weapons and ceased kneecappings, its intimidation of people and its racketeering—if all those things ceased—it could not be in the position that he is discussing? We need to be clear. I am trying to derive such clarity from him, and I have no doubt that he will give that clarity now.
  Mr. Dodds: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but we have set out our position very clearly in our recent publications—we have entitled them "the Blair necessities"—and those conditions have been laid down not by the Democratic Unionist party, not by Unionists, but by the Prime Minister and others who have made it very clear that there must be acts of completion: a total end to all paramilitary activity and the disbandment of the IRA, so that it goes away completely and for ever. People in Northern Ireland will have to have confidence that that is in fact what has happened. That must be proved, and we will have to measure that over a period. The reality, however, is that there can be no prospect of our allowing such people into positions of executive power over policing and justice—or, indeed, into any role in executive Government in Northern Ireland. What differentiates us from the Ulster Unionist party and other parties in the House is that we will not tolerate the entry of such people into government in Northern Ireland in this or any other area of responsibility while there is any doubt about their role in terms of the ballot box in one hand and the paramilitary violence in the other.
  Mr. Mallon: Could the hon. Gentleman go a little further and say who—what agency, what body—will establish whether paramilitarism had ended, weapons have been got rid of and all the other paraphernalia of violence has ceased? Who will establish that if it is not formally established through a political process?
  Mr. Dodds: The hon. Gentleman is talking hypothetically, because there is little evidence at the moment of Sinn Fein-IRA being prepared to commit to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. A judgment will have to be made, but that will be for the people of Northern Ireland, as the Prime Minister said in a response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) during Prime Minister's questions some time ago. He said that everyone would
  1570
  have to be satisfied about the acts of completion, and that will have to be measured against the test of whether people in Northern Ireland have confidence and are satisfied IRA violence is over once and for all. We cannot measure that by leaving it to some independent body to establish, by setting it to one side or by defining a set of circumstances or tests. That will be known if and when those circumstances ever come about, and it will be for the people to make a judgment on that at that time. As far as we are concerned, the reality—certainly if the Prime Minister holds to the position that he has set out and others hold to the position that they have set out—is that there can be no role for IRA-Sinn Fein in government in Northern Ireland in the present circumstances.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the satisfaction of the public would be all the greater if those in the IRA do not behave in the mealy-mouthed way that they did last October, when they tried in a convoluted fashion to give the impression that they may have been ending violence and tried putting weapons beyond use in a way that was not transparent? The clarity and quality of what they do will lead to satisfaction in the community.
  Mr. Dodds: Of course my hon. Friend is absolutely right. When one considers the events of last October and the debacle surrounding the decommissioning episode, one also thinks of the statement that Gerry Adams made at the time, which was heralded as being a major statement akin to, "The war is over." In fact, all bar some politicians who were keen to see the process succeed had no idea whatsoever about what those in the Sinn Fein leadership were trying to say. One would have needed a degree in republican methodology and history to understand what they were trying to say. There was certainly little clarity in any of that, so my hon. Friend is right to point out that such clarity is vital if people are to be certain. Everyone on the ground in the communities must be clear and certain about what is happening. People in the rural parts of Northern Ireland and in the towns and cities must be clear—this will not have to be explained to them—that the IRA has gone and that the violence is over once and for all.
  Legislation and the criminal justice system should not change as the result of political negotiations such as the joint declaration and the Belfast agreement. They should be measured against the test of whether they will improve the criminal justice system's ability to make people feel safer in their own homes, as the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said in introducing the 2002 Act on Second Reading. Instead, what we have heard today from the Government and a number of other Members in support of the Bill is that such things should be measured against the test of whether they are in the joint declaration or the criminal law review implementation plan. Those are not the crucial issues. The crucial test is whether the Bill delivers a better criminal justice system. Will it enhance trust and confidence in the judiciary? Does it protect judicial independence, or does it increase political interference? Will it result in a more efficient and effective delivery of justice? Those are the tests and measures that we should be proposing, not those advanced by Members in support of the Bill today.

  1571
  Turning to some of the Bill's detail, I agree with other Members that there is little controversy about some of the clauses, and they will have the support of everyone—in particular, clause 9, which introduces the right of appeal against the grant of bail in a magistrates court. That is in line with what the Chief Constable and the police want, and there is no controversy about that. Clause 14 gives the police the power to arrest in cases of driving while disqualified, and those are sensible modifications to the legislative regime in Northern Ireland.
  That, however, prompts the question raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington). If such measures are being introduced, why cannot the Government go further and introduce a number of other provisions that the police and communities want brought into force? I understand that the Government's position is that there will be a period of consultation, but there has been much foot dragging. I have no doubt that, when people in communities, across the Province are consulted, they will say a big yes to the introduction of measures such as those for antisocial behaviour orders. I have spoken to the Minister about that subject and I know that he has an interest in it.
  Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman knows that communities across Northern Ireland have resoundingly said yes, and we have put detailed provisions out for consultation. Furthermore, I have shortened the consultation period precisely so that we can implement the measures as soon as possible. There is a crying need for them, and we know from experience in England that they work. We want to introduce them as soon as possible. We have been taking action, so I do not think that we can be accused of dragging our feet.
  Mr. Dodds: I am afraid I have to disagree. The Bill provided an opportunity to introduce legislation, and there would have been little argument about the propriety of doing so. I am at a loss to understand why that and other provisions should be missing. If the Bill passes through the House tonight, I hope that we will have a chance in Committee to return to some of these issues. We have an opportunity that should not be missed.
  The biggest issues for many people are the fear of crime, the reality of crime on the streets and the lack of a proper police response, as they see it, to deal with many problems. When one talks to the police, one finds that the issue for them is not just the lack of proper resources, but the lack of proper powers to deal with some of the problems. They would be keen to see progress on some of those issues.
  I shall move on to some of the more contentious provisions in the Bill. Clause 1 allows for establishment of the judicial appointments commission immediately in advance of devolution of criminal justice matters to Northern Ireland. Throughout the debate, the Government and the Bill's supporters have relied on the need to implement the criminal justice review. They have said that it provides an argument in favour of some of the provisions being introduced. They have argued that the Bill is not entirely faithful to the review and other recommendations, but the clause is an example of something that was not in the review. It explicitly said
  1572
  that the provisions contained in the clause should go hand in hand with devolution. However, the Government have introduced a clause that will set up the judicial appointments commission in advance of devolution. I would be grateful for an explanation of why such a provision is so urgent when there is not the same sense of urgency about other matters.
  Reference has been made to the position in Scotland, but we are not yet clear what kind of appointments system will finally emerge in England and Wales. We know what happened in the other place this week. There is merit in the Government considering the position in England, Wales and Northern Ireland together and as one rather than rushing ahead with clause 1.
  When the Bill was introduced in the other place, it referred to the Secretary of State taking over the responsibilities of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. As it progressed through the other place, the provision was amended so that the Lord Chancellor will take on the Secretary of State's role. What will happen when and if the Lord Chancellor's post is abolished? What would happen if the Secretary of State had no particular judicial background or experience? What would qualify such a Secretary of State to have a role in relation to the judicial appointments commission? When we talk about more political interference in the appointment of judges, that is an example that we could point to.
  We have pointed out in our submissions that we believe that the judicial appointments commission will be far too big for a place of the size of Northern Ireland. It is proposed that there will be 15 members of the commission for England owing to the large number of appointments— about 900 a year—that it will make. I understand that the Scottish body consists of 10 members, but the Northern Ireland commission is to have 13, despite the small number of appointments with which it will deal each year. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain why, when he is prepared to amend some aspects of the judicial appointments commission, he is sticking by a large body consisting of the Lord Chief Justice, five judicial members, two members from the legal profession and five lay members. Why do we need such a large body to deal with relatively few appointments?
  Clause 2 will ensure that the tenure of judicial members of the commission is brought in line with that of lay members. Its other purpose is to ensure that all those responsible for making appointments to the commission have a duty, as far as is practicable, to make it reflective of the community in Northern Ireland. It will thus no longer fall on the Secretary of State—or the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister under the devolved set-up—to ensure that the commission is reflective of the community. Will the Minister explain how that will work in practice? For example, will those who first make nominations have discretion in their choice of whom to put forward? Will those who make nominations later be forced to correct any imbalance? Alternatively, if a body may make two or more nominations, will it be expected to nominate people from both sides of the community and reflect a need to put forward women and people from ethnic backgrounds?

  1573
  If the commission was not reflective of the community as a whole, against whom would a disgruntled person who felt that he should have been appointed bring a case? Would such a person bring a case against those who were supposed to nominate him, all the nominating bodies or the Secretary of State? Lots of aspects of the system need to be explored.
  My main concern about the process is the criteria that will be applied when appointing lay members. People's qualifications to make judicial appointments will have to be assessed carefully because we are talking about significant positions of responsibility. It is clear that people will have to maintain the respect that they currently have for the judiciary of Northern Ireland. We need more explanation of how can we measure people's expertise at making recommendations.
  Many of us in the Unionist community, when we hear talk of bodies, organisations and commissions that are supposed to be representative or reflective of the community as a whole in Northern Ireland, look at the bodies that have existed and do exist, because some of them little reflect the majority viewpoint. We think of the Parades Commission, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the old police authority, and we even consider recent appointments to the Independent Monitoring Commission. Can one say that those bodies are truly reflective of society as a whole in Northern Ireland? We will examine carefully appointments to the commission to ensure that the fine words are backed up in reality because our experience of appointments to similar kinds of bodies has not been happy.
  Clause 3 is probably the most vital provision in the Bill and causes us the greatest concern. We welcome and endorse the view that merit should be pre-eminent in the appointment of members of the judiciary. It is a prerequisite that should apply above everything else, so the reference in subsection (8) to appointments made "solely" on merit is welcome. However, there is a strong argument that subsections (9) and (10) could undermine the merit principle and weaken it considerably. The introduction of a programme of action by the JAC raises questions about the extent to which the merit principle will receive the pre-eminence that it deserves. Broadly speaking, the judiciary in Northern Ireland is reflective of the religious make-up of society. However, there are no female judges in the High Court or the Court of Appeal, although there are women judges at a lower level. No females and no one from an ethnic background have been appointed puisne judges, Court of Appeal judges or Lord Chief Justice, and that should be addressed. However, until recently, only one of the four judges in the Court of Appeal came from the Protestant community. In the light of the appointment of the new Lord Chief Justice and the traditional method of appointing Court of Appeal judges on the basis of seniority, that may well continue, so it, too, should be addressed.
  Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but is there a pristine measurement of merit in any walk of life? Is it not the case that many people of outstanding merit in the legal profession do not want to be appointed as judges because they prefer to do their existing job, and perhaps making much more
  1574
  money? Similarly, in Government appointments, when were two people from the same party ever appointed European Commissioners? Are such appointments made on the basis of merit or on the basis of one from each side? Some methods of appointment are not peculiar to the north of Ireland.
  Mr. Dodds: As for nominations or appointments to the European Commission, I have never doubted that they are made on a political basis. However, we are talking about something very different, as appointments to the judiciary are independent of considerations of political affiliation, religion or anything else. I do not object to the notion of a pool from which eligible candidates should be drawn, but we should strive to appoint the person best qualified to do the job properly. The Government have not gone down the route that they took on policing. They have defended a 50:50 discrimination policy on recruits to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but in appointments to the judiciary, they are not suggesting the creation of a pool of candidates. There are not arguing that a Roman Catholic appointment has to be balanced by another appointment, or that a Protestant appointment has to be balanced by an appointment from the other community. In the Bill, they say that the merit principle should apply, and that action should be taken to try to promote a judiciary that is more reflective of the community. When it comes to policing a completely different attitude is taken, entirely as a result of political considerations. The merit principle is put to the back of the queue, and we are offered instead what amounts to a policy of discrimination against the Protestant community. In relation to the 50:50 provision—I must put this on record again, because it is not emphasised enough—the legislation speaks of Roman Catholics and others, and those others are comprised not only of Protestants, but of people of other denominations and from ethnic backgrounds.
  Mr. Hunter: Before my hon. Friend leaves this subject, may I remind him of the point that I put to the Secretary of State? Although it is not stipulated in the Bill, the only conceivable way to implement the two guiding principles of merit and of reflecting the community is indeed by the creation of a pool of merit, which is precisely what is bound to emerge over time.
  Mr. Dodds: My hon. Friend's suggestion has a lot of merit.
  Surely, some consideration should be given to divorcing or separating the roles of appointing members of the judiciary and of undertaking the programme of action to ensure that they are separate functions for separate bodies. Clause 3 involves serious issues that will have to be discussed in detail in Committee.
  Clause 4 deals with the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lords Justices of Appeal. I listened carefully to what Members on the other side of the House said about that. Concern has been expressed about those appointments being made by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. As was pointed out in another place, that effectively turns the Prime Minister into a glorified postman, because his role will simply be to implement the recommendation of the First Minister

  1575
  and the Deputy First Minister. One can envisage circumstances in which it is not easy to get agreement between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on the appointment of a Lord Chief Justice. Alternatively, the decision could become mired in discussions about other issues or traded off as part of a negotiating process. That is not the proper way to go about appointing the most senior judge and law officer in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friends and I remain to be convinced of the merit of the proposal that the Prime Minister should simply accept the recommendation of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and automatically implement it without any discretion or consideration on his part.
  I was disappointed to hear the Secretary of State say that the Government intend to bring back their proposal to remove the Lord Chief Justice's power of veto in relation to dismissals from the judiciary. That measure was lost in another place, which was the right decision. As the independent head of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice should have the final say on a matter of such import as the removal from the bench of a member of the judiciary. At the end of the day, that decision should not be taken by politicians. The Lord Chief Justice, as head of the judiciary, should have a major say in it.
  On clause 5, and the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions to refer matters to the police ombudsman, it is unnecessary to upgrade that discretion to a duty. The provision for discretion is sensible and should remain. There is discretion in all such matters; for example, in many cases, the DPP has discretion over whether to prosecute. That discretion should be exercised in the proper way, but to place a duty on the DPP to take that action come what may would be to put an unnecessary onus on him. I wonder how much time the DPP's office will spend combing through every aspect of every case to make sure that some aspect that should have been referred to the police ombudsman has not been overlooked. I hope that that will not end up as something else that distracts the DPP from the proper business of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland.
  On clause 6, I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who said that he was not entirely clear why it was necessary. It does not differ much from the common law offence of perverting the course of justice, so I cannot see why it has been included in the Bill—unless, again, it is because it was in the joint declaration. However, to return to the main point that I made at the outset, is that the test by which we should measure such provisions, or should we use the test of what is in the best interests of the delivery of an effective criminal justice system? The second of those should be the test. If the provision is not necessary, we should not go back to the joint declaration and say that it should be included just because it was agreed at Hillsborough some months ago by various parties. I do not even know how it was agreed, because the interesting fact came out of our recent discussions that some such agreements were made at the last minute on the back of an envelope—that may even apply to aspects of the Belfast agreement. We should not be hidebound on such matters, but should consider them on their merits to determine whether they are in the best interests of Northern Ireland.
  1576
  I conclude with a reference to clause 12, on the transfer of prisoners. It is a sensible enough tool to add to those at the Secretary of State's disposal for dealing with security and safety inside Northern Ireland prisons. However, I share many of the reservations that have been expressed about the way in which some measures have been implemented inside Maghaberry in recent months. Will the Minister tell us what right of appeal there will be for prisoners who are told that they are to be transferred? What sort of pre-emptive action will he be able to take? Will he be able to transfer someone whom he thinks is disruptive or causing disorder, without any evidence of their having had occasion to resort to violence in a prison? There are obvious difficulties for prisoners' families, and some families in my constituency have expressed their concerns to me about difficulties in visiting. If someone is transferred outside the jurisdiction to a prison in England or Wales—or Scotland, if the necessary changes are made—that will add to families' problems in visiting. All those issues need to be addressed, but the clause should nevertheless be included.
  We have strong doubts about the necessity of many parts of the Bill. Other parts, on their own, are meritorious and non-controversial, but the basic fact is that the legislation is being introduced for political reasons and as a result of the joint declaration. That is not the proper basis on which to introduce legislation. It should be done for proper reasons, not for the sort of reason that the Government have advanced today.
  4.14 pm
  Mr. Iain Luke: I rise to support the Government in this Second Reading debate on a further justice Bill for Northern Ireland. It is entirely correct that, despite the current stalemate in the progress of the political processes in Northern Ireland, we should be doing all that we can to ensure that all the pieces are in place to allow a fair, free and fully inclusive society to be fostered there. However, I look forward to the completion of the review of the Good Friday agreement and the peace process, and I believe that on conclusion of that review, political parties that still foster paramilitary links should not be able to enter the Northern Ireland Executive.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with the model proposed by the Democratic Unionist party in its presentation to the review body, which looks at an organic, evolving committee system that will allow for the Assembly to be up and running and for cross-party dialogue at committee level, while ensuring that people who are not signed up to the political process and who still have paramilitary links are not allowed to play an effective role in the governance of the Province.
  Like the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) —who is no longer in his seat—I, too, must express surprise at the negative nature of the wording of the amendment tabled by Opposition Members. In their argument for no change, they advocate the perpetuation of what many people in the Province feel to be a biased and unbalanced system of justice that favours one section of the community over the others—
  Mr. Donaldson: Rubbish!
  Mr. Luke: Well, that is what has been put in print, and I have also read it in evidence. Certain members of the

  1577
  community in Northern Ireland feel that they were born with a second-class birthright, depending on which side of the peace wall they were born. We cannot allow that situation to go on. In saying that, I am in no way calling into question the integrity and professional competence of those who are called to serve in the justice system of Northern Ireland. However, for a system of justice to be fully accepted by all in the community that it is set up to serve and safeguard—
  Mr. Donaldson: If the justice system in Northern Ireland is so biased and unfair, will the hon. Gentleman explain why, at the height of the troubles, there were as many loyalist paramilitaries as republican paramilitaries being convicted and put in prison? I know that, because those prisons were in my constituency. If the system is not fair, how on earth did all those loyalist paramilitaries end up being convicted?
  Mr. Luke: Obviously, the system has functioned. However, there is still a perception that there is insufficient cross-community confidence in the fairness of the current system—I shall refer later to the document published last February by the SDLP in that regard—and that is why the Bill is trying to redress the balance.
  Mr. Donaldson: Where is the evidence?
  Mr. Luke: I shall carry on, but I shall be happy to give way if the hon. Gentleman has any other points to make on this matter.
  For the system to be seen to be fair and balanced, there has to be a representative element in ensuring that the areas of interest over which the competence of the legal system in Northern Ireland holds sway are fully served. I firmly believe that the Bill promotes that purpose, specifically in the creation of a judicial appointments commission, whose members will reflect the broad spectrum of interests in the community. That, in turn, will ensure that, in future, the judiciary will better reflect Northern Ireland's society. The commission will go a long way towards creating a system of justice that has the confidence of all the people of Northern Ireland—and all the communities that have to coexist there—and towards ensuring a peaceful and safe society there.
  Mr. Hunter: I am having a little trouble following the hon. Gentleman's argument. I know of the perception, which I reject, that the Royal Ulster Constabulary was not an open and fair organisation, but I am searching my memory for any perception in the past 30 to 40 years that the judiciary was biased. The Bill is based on that assumption, which the hon. Gentleman has asserted. We are entitled to ask him for the evidence on which he bases that view.
  Mr. Luke: There is a belief across community boundaries that the judiciary is not representative in its make-up. It is not balanced as regards sex or ethnic minorities, but there is also a feeling that it was biased in favour of one community. That is my perception after speaking to people in Northern Ireland and from my research.
  Mr. Donaldson: Does the hon. Gentleman know the religion of the new Lord Chief Justice of Northern
  1578
  Ireland? Does he know the religious balance of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland? There is no evidence to support the theory that he expounds. Only the terrorists and paramilitaries, who did not recognise the justice system in the first place, have argued against it. Of course, they have their unique system of justice.
  Mr. Luke: I do not speak on behalf of terrorists. I am expressing what I believe to be a widely held perception in specific sections of the community in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman may represent one section of the community but he must accept that other members will hold other views.
  Mr. Mallon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the criminal justice review was largely written by people who are involved in the legal process? They knew at first hand the pulse in the legal profession. Of course, others apart from lawyers contributed to writing it, but lawyers pinpointed the deficiency, prepared the necessary changes and presented them to Parliament to be incorporated in legislation, which we are now considering. Not a political party but a cross-section of the community in the north of Ireland saw the need for change.
  Mr. Luke: My hon. Friend is right.
  Let me consider the contribution of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), who questioned the need for new legislation. He set out a series of tests for the way in which we should measure the Bill. The crucial test, which I support, is whether the Bill will enhance the acceptance of the criminal justice system in the Province. I firmly believe that the answer is yes. On the basis of the hon. Gentleman's test, the measure is needed. His negative approach to the proposals has no merit and I hope that he will reconsider his opposition to the Bill and vote with the Government.
  I agree with the points in the SDLP's policy paper, "Delivering a New Beginning for Criminal Justice", which was published in February last year. I have read all parties' positions on the matter. The SDLP document emphasises that there is insufficient cross-community confidence in the fairness of the current system of justice in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, North may deny that. Indeed, that appears to be his argument, but those who are elected to represent a whole community have to take cognisance of the views of other members of it. Legislators cannot hide and refuse to accept responsibility for legislating fairly across the community divide.
  The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) were moving and emotive. I believe that he tackled the issues and dealt with trying to isolate parties that continue to have links with paramilitary organisations, which try to steer the political process, with perverse effects. He also made the case for rational and moderate debate to ensure that the peace-loving community—the majority of people in Northern Ireland—has the benefit of a fair justice system.
  Opposition to the Bill denies that there is a problem and ignores the fears and uneasiness of many people about the impartiality and probity of a system that one could hope to access as a right as a citizen in the

  1579
  Province. That fear lingers not only among those who have the most fundamentalist, anti-British, republican views but, I am led to believe, among many well meaning, moderate, respectable and well respected holders of milder nationalist views
  On Second Reading in the other place on 16 December, Baroness Amos made a telling comment when she said:
  "All justice systems must continue to evolve. They cannot be allowed to sit still and to ossify or they will cease to meet the needs of modern society. As well as being effective, efficient and fair, they must reflect the community they serve and be prepared to change as society changes."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 1091.]
  No one who is familiar with what is going on in Northern Ireland today, on both sides of the peace wall, can deny or denigrate the real changes that are taking place. They are there for all to see. Along with other MPs, and officials in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, I spent Tuesday of last week touring Belfast—south, north and west—and observing developments in housing. We talked to many residents and many representatives of the community. It was a heartening, informative and interesting tour. We had an opportunity to discuss with people their perception of the current situation, and of how the move towards a peaceful, safe society was progressing.
  Both loyalists and nationalists made clear their welcome for the climate created by the peace process. They were embracing change. Many of those in north Belfast were involved in a campaign to stop antisocial behaviour, and would be travelling to Edinburgh the following day to share their experiences with members of other councils throughout the United Kingdom. It was evident that those on both sides of the peace wall to whom we spoke were involved not just in cross-UK dialogue, but in cross-community dialogue. All were clearly committed to working towards a peaceful, democratic society. I believe that the Bill is another step along that road. To deny that change is occurring is perverse; indeed, such a move is utterly doomed. It is a sad indictment of the negative effect that petty party politics can have on peaceful progress.
  The Bill recognises the basic fact that human rights have a role to play in the administration of justice. It places a duty on Northern Ireland justice agencies to take account of the way in which they handle human rights. It constitutes a response to the conclusions of the criminal justice review, which stresses that human rights and human dignity—the dignity of individuals as human beings—should be at the core of our consideration of the way in which criminal justice operates, both in the Province and in this part of the UK. The Government have rightly highlighted awareness of human rights as a key element in the operation of criminal justice organisations. They want to ensure that in future such organisations pay due regard to guidance and directives on relevant international standards.
  A matter that I have already raised—as have many other Members, and the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee—is the Bill's proposal to allow the transfer of military prisoners from Northern Ireland to mainland penal institutions. That has featured largely in the Scottish media this week. A Sewel motion has been tabled in the Scottish Parliament to enable the Scottish
  1580
  end of the transfer to go ahead if necessary. I—and, I think, the Committee—accept the reasoning behind the proposal in the Bill, which flows from recommendations in the Steele report on the separation, as opposed to segregation, of political prisoners in Northern Ireland. I think that such powers, if they were ever used, could have adverse effects.
  Only at a late stage in the Select Committee's inquiry into the separation of paramilitary prisoners at HMP Maghaberry—in fact, in response to a question that I put to the Minister responsible for justice and security on 10 December—was its attention drawn to the possibility of the transfer of prisoners from Maghaberry to the mainland as a sanction of last resort.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He raises a valid point—transportation has been part of the folk memory of the people of the island of Ireland for centuries. The transportation used to be to Van Diemen's Land; now it is to Scotland or parts of England. The Government should be wary; that folk memory was expressed at Twickenham every five minutes last Saturday by the singing of "Fields of Athenry", which is based on transportation. I have not discussed the population of Van Diemen's Land, Australia, but the matter should be watched carefully because it hits what is probably the rawest nerve in Irish life.
  Mr. Luke: Being a student of Irish history, I take serious note of that intervention. In Dundee, we are very happy about the transportation of many Irish people to the city, and especially to the universities, over a long period of time. My family has connections with the Province, and its members have moved backwards and forwards in the linen trade over the past 200 years. The word "transportation" has connotations that may apply to prisoners if they are ever moved from prisons in Northern Ireland to prisons on the mainland.
  It is right to restate the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's response to the point, which is outlined on page 28 of its report. It states:
  "We believe that the proposal to transfer prisoners to other jurisdictions as a sanction of last resort is very dangerous and could easily be manipulated by the paramilitaries in their campaign to undermine the Northern Ireland Prison Service and, ultimately, the British Government. We caution against its use in the strongest possible terms."

  That view was expressed by the Northern Ireland Prison Service when we visited the prison and in evidence that we took subsequently. I personally believe that the implementation of prisoner transfers could impede rather than promote the peace process, which the Government and hon. Members are actively pursuing.
  Prisoner transfers were discussed in the early stages of the Steele review, when the number of paramilitary prisoners was fairly low. In the move towards separation and, I believe, segregation, many ordinary, decent criminals—as they are called in prisons—have been pressured into claiming paramilitary status, so the number of paramilitary prisoners has grown significantly. The proposed increase from 50 to 200 prisoners could cause real problems given the activities that we saw in Maghaberry prison last year, where separation was forced on the authorities because of dirty protests and roof top protests. If such protests return,

  1581
  we may be discussing not one or two prisoners but dozens. That political tool could be used to good effect by paramilitaries.
  The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was present for the earlier part of the debate but has had to go. In the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 10 December, he said:
  "To put this into the political context rather than the prison regime context, if that happens, if you transport paramilitaries from Northern Ireland to Scotland or England or Wales, you will be creating an enormous political weapon that will be exploited by the paramilitaries."
  We have seen that happen; we are in this situation because the paramilitaries have manipulated events to achieve separation. I am sure that many hon. Members have an intimate knowledge of the situation in the Maze prison—I do not—and we should never to return to that. Commitments were given at that time that a line had been drawn and that there would be no movement from it, and I sincerely hope that that will be the case.
  In conclusion, the Bill completes the implementation of the criminal justice review, which is an important part of the Good Friday agreement, and will help to deliver the fair, modern and balanced justice system that the people of Northern Ireland truly deserve. In introducing the Second Reading of the Bill in the other place, Baroness Amos said:
  "The Bill will provide for a justice system that is more transparent, open and accountable: a justice system that will instil even greater levels of confidence in all parts of the community."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 1095.]
  The Bill will bring more light and dispel a little of the darkness that has so long clouded the fair northern shores of our sister island. I commend it to the House.
  4.35 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I am sure that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) means well, and he has clearly made efforts to inform himself. I hope that he continues to do so, and I look forward to a time when his contributions display a greater understanding of and judgment on the matters to which he refers.
  The Bill is a modest measure compared with the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. It is quite short, but it is set in a context that means that our debate today has ranged over several matters. In view of the lateness of the hour—although few Members remain to contribute—I do not intend to cover all the issues that have been mentioned. However, I wish to make a couple of general points, two of which in particular relate to the contribution from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I have a compliment for him, as well as something of a criticism.
  The compliment refers to the comments that he made when he was reflecting on the need for people visibly to give up paramilitarism and violence. He pointed out that it was entirely inconsistent with the devolution of responsibility for justice matters for people still to be involved in paramilitary organisations. I recall comments that the hon. Gentleman has made in other debates on the subject in which he referred to the need
  1582
  for it to be clear that institutions are robust enough—in terms of durability and the integrity of those who will operate them—to deal with the real stresses and strains that would result from the devolution of such matters. It would be the final sign that the arrangements are well bedded in and are durable enough. It flows from that that we are not at present in that position. I shall come back to that point.
  I was less than happy with the hon. Gentleman's comments in response to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) when he was talking about the discriminatory arrangements for the recruitment of police. I think that the hon. Gentleman asked whether a 50–50 split was not equality. That comment may have been made by the hon. Gentleman without reflection and instinctively, but it betrays an approach that is fundamentally wrong. It is a common mistake on the issue, and I have heard it made even by those involved in equality issues in their professional lives.
  The assumption underlying the question of whether 50–50 is not equality that by equality we mean an equal outcome for people. It implies that the two "communities" in Northern Ireland should be treated as if they were two equal entities and that the treatment of them should be equal. However, that is not equality as contained in the Belfast agreement or in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It is not what the Equality Commission is charged with doing and it is not what human rights instruments mean when they talk of equality. In all those cases, the reference to equality is to equality of opportunity, and the need for each individual to be treated fairly and equally. There is no basis for approaching the issue as if we were dealing with group rights, with groups having to be treated equally. Such an approach would mean treating individuals oppressively and in a discriminatory way.
  Mr. Mallon: The reality is that the 50–50 system was introduced to redress an imbalance in the police service personnel. Members my party and I have been told many times that we must encourage people to join the police. The right hon. Gentleman's point has some validity, but it falls down because the arrangement is there on a pro tent basis, until the imbalance is redressed. He and everyone else want it to be redressed, but when that starts to happen, the complaints pour in.
  Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman referred to three things there: to an imbalance that needs to be redressed; to comments made urging him and his political colleagues to encourage people to join; and to the temporary nature of the arrangements. One must bear it in mind that, even at the height of the affirmative action programmes in the United States—and that is a long time ago now—they were applied only when there was some element of wrongdoing or fault. To suggest that the admitted imbalance in police numbers in Northern Ireland arose as a result of wrongdoing or deliberate discrimination is quite wrong.
  Mr. Mallon: I did not suggest that.
  Mr. Trimble: No, but I have to make the point because when some people hear a reference to imbalance they assume that them is some element of fault. If there

  1583
  is fault in relation to the imbalance, it lies with those who through various means discouraged people from applying. I think the hon. Gentleman knows what I am referring to. The interesting thing about his comments about being urged to encourage people to join, and the irony of the whole matter, is that the target group from which we would want to recruit police officers—persons aged around 18 to 25—is, roughly speaking, evenly balanced between Protestant and Catholic, so that if there was equal participation, there would be something akin to 50–50 recruitment, operating on a purely merit basis
  The key is not compulsion and legalised discrimination but encouraging equal participation, and already significant steps have been taken in that direction. The hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind that with the legalised discrimination that is currently in place individuals are left with a strong sense of injustice. It is not as if we are talking about a handful of people whose interests can be overlooked for the greater public good—although I would not advance that principle in any event—because the number of those who have suffered a personal injustice is getting into four figures, and that builds up a significant body of resentment in the community and has other ill effects that the hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind: it means that those who benefit from this injustice come into the service with a stigma that will be with them all their days, of having got there through special assistance and being in some respect second-class.
  Many of those people are not second-class, but because of the legislation that the hon. Gentleman has promoted, people whose interests he would wish to advance will carry that stigma throughout their career. He and others who continue to defend this approach should bear in mind not only the injustice done to those who fail to be appointed but the stigma that they impose on those who gain appointment through these means, especially as it is all unnecessary given the existing structures. I have dwelt on this issue longer than I intended because of the quality of the response from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh.
  Mr. Mallon: The right hon. Gentleman is making many very interesting points, and I hope to reconvene our discussion when we are dealing with policing, rather than the judicial system.
  Mr. Trimble: I raised the issue in order to tease out the mistake that has been made, which is to think that equality operates in terms of group rights, rather than individual rights. We must always remind ourselves of that point.
  My hon. Friends and I will support the reasoned amendment because the terms in which it is expressed focus attention on the Bill's first seven clauses, which are ill-advised. Indeed, the provisions relating to the judicial appointments commission, which are central to those clauses, are particularly ill-advised. It is on appointments and the resulting creeping-in of political influences that the reasoned amendment focuses, because clauses 8 to 14 in fact contain a number of sensible, if somewhat modest, measures.
  As other Members have said—I shall not dwell on this point—the Bill has been introduced out of purely political considerations, which are contained in the first
  1584
  half of it. The second half is the result of the Northern Ireland Office's efforts to make use of a suitable vehicle for long-overdue changes. As was pointed out to the Minister, it is a pity that he was not a little more imaginative and energetic in introducing other necessary and desirable measures for which the Bill could act as a vehicle. It is also a pity that he has crafted a long title so restrictive that it prevents Members from using the Bill to rectify some of the mistakes that he has made. I hope that between now and when we meet in Committee, he will reflect on that point and adopt a more liberal and generous approach.
  The provisions relating to the judicial appointments commission—the central issue—are premature. They were largely enacted in the 2002 Act and were designed to operate after devolution. As has been pointed out in interventions, the criminal justice review recommended the commission because of devolution—it did not recommend that it operate before devolution. It is quite remarkable that Labour Members, who keep talking about the need to stick closely to the terms of the criminal justice review, are themselves acting inconsistently in respect of the Bill and its central provisions. Again, that points to the political motivation that lies behind this legislation. My colleagues and I have never been able to see the nature of the political gain that some Labour Members think this legislation will provide. We do not quite understand the overriding political purpose of the Bill's proponents.
  When the notion of a judicial appointments commission first came to light in the criminal justice review report, I was generally welcoming of it. I did not criticise it at the time, and it seemed then a reasonable concept—I am talking about the concept, rather than the detail—that was not terribly controversial, and which might prove useful. I did not reflect upon it deeply then, but I have since, and the more I have done so, the more I have concluded that it is a bad idea. I am referring not to the detail, but to the concept itself as it will operate within our system, in contrast with what went before.
  There is a paradox in this regard. At the moment, senior judicial appointments are made by the Lord Chancellor, who is a quasi-political figure and a member of the Cabinet. Some people have got exercised about this issue, because they think that a fundamental principle involving the separation of powers is being breached. But anybody who knows anything about British political life and history knows that our arrangements have never been based upon any concept of separation of powers—they have evolved in a more complicated way—and that there are positive advantages of the system that has evolved here in the United Kingdom, not only in the concept of the Lord Chancellor, but in the presence in another place of the Law Lords and in the presence in Parliament of people who can answer both here and there on behalf of the prosecuting authorities. We had an example only last week of the advantage of that and of how we would suffer as a House if a crude separation of powers approach were adopted. But, then, if one followed a crude separation of powers approach one would remove the entire Treasury Bench from this place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Some hon. Members indicate assent to that. I presume they are thinking of the present

  1585
  Treasury Bench rather than all Treasury Benches on all occasions. I must repeat that it would be very bad for our political system if that sort of crude separation of powers approach were adopted.
  The paradox is that, although superficially the present arrangements for the appointment of judges may appear open to political influence, in practice with the proposed commission there will be a greater danger of political influence over judicial appointments. I came to that conclusion thinking, by way of analogy, of some of the judicial procedures we have experienced in Northern Ireland. The jury-free trials, the Diplock courts, may have seemed in theory to be risky in terms of judicial standards. In fact, they were very successful. Someone on the Criminal Cases Review Commission told me not long ago that per capita it had fewer applications alleging miscarriages of justice from Northern Ireland than from any other part of the United Kingdom, which it attributed to the success of the Diplock courts. Why was that?
  The key point was the sole, undivided responsibility that lay with the single judge. The same factor can be seen with regard to judicial appointments. The Lord Chancellor makes the appointments—yes, after consultation—and carries the sole, undivided responsibility for them. If it becomes clear at any point that there are questions about the merit of appointments, there is no doubt about who is responsible. The Lord Chancellor knows that if he were to err and set aside considerations of merit for some reason of political or other advantage, the responsibility would lie with him and nowhere else.
  So the paradox is that appointments by an individual who has a quasi-political role tend not to be infected by political considerations, but with the judicial appointments commission there is a very serious danger. The commission proposed in the Bill will have a chairman and 12 other persons, seven from the judiciary and the legal professions and five lay members. If there is devolution, the lay members will be appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. If there is not, they will be appointed by the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor or whoever.
  That has to be taken with the injunction that the members shall be "reflective of the community". People will think of "reflective" in political and religious terms in Northern Ireland, and will think that they have to bring forward people with those labels on them. Those persons will know that they have been appointed because they have those labels, and will have a sense—implicit, not explicit—that it is their job in the commission to represent the interests of those whose labels they bear, because that is what led to their appointment. They will feel that it is their job to ensure that people who share their labels, which got them into the commission, are appointed. That will bring political considerations—again implicitly, not explicitly—into the operation of the commission itself. It does not mean that every recommendation that flows from it will be tainted, but some appointments will be affected by political considerations. The structure brings political considerations into judicial appointments in a way that does not apply under the present arrangements.
  1586
  I am not saying that the present arrangements are perfect. There may be good reason to reflect on whether a broader range of people could be considered, but we should bear in mind the fact that, in respect of judicial appointments, a broader range could come only from persons qualified to be appointed. That necessarily means a segment of the population that has already gone through various processes, which to some extent detaches them from the population as a whole—but that is by the way. My main point, after comparing appointments in the past with the proposed new arrangements, is that I have come to the conclusion that the proposals are dangerous and that the existing arrangements are better and more likely to exclude political influence. It is a paradox, but life often proceeds in that way.
  Other criticisms could be, and have been, made by others, but I have dwelt on that main point to explain what influenced my change of approach to the concept. As I said, I was first favourably inclined, but on further thought, I reached the conclusion that it is not a good idea. The other criticisms, already touched on, go back to the concept of being representative or reflective. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) asked how it was possible to be reflective and what it would mean when someone is making one, two or three—or in some cases, five—appointments. The whole process is unclear and bristles with difficulties. Our experience in that matter is not good.
  When I examined the criminal justice review earlier today and saw that it introduced the suggestion that the commission or lay persons appointed be reflective or representative of tie community, I noted that it expressly referred to the Human Rights Commission as an example in support of the concept. It might have been possible to view the Human Rights Commission with rose-tinted spectacles when the review was written, but is there anyone any where in Northern Ireland today who believes that the present Human Rights Commission is a good thing, or that it did not do a botched job of its appointments and operations? Few would dissent from that view now.
  It is important to try to analyse why the Human Rights Commission did a botched job of its appointments. It may be that the Secretary of State at the time decided as a final act of revenge that she would make a whole set of bad appointments to screw up the process in Northern Ireland. Some people hold that view, and I am not saying whether I hold it myself. It may be the case, but it is somewhat unlikely, on balance, that that was the sole reason for what happened. There are other reasons. I suspect that some of the officials involved in the process thought they were doing a reasonable job, but I have reason to believe that some of them now feel deeply embarrassed about what happened.
  Why did well-intentioned people end up producing such a terrible result? Part of the reason is the fact that the persons doing the job were not organically connected with society in Northern Ireland and did not fully understand what they were dealing with. I am almost tempted to call it the Dundee, East syndrome, but that is another issue. There are other factors as well and I suspect that the criteria adopted for appointments were what led to the result. Again I would suggest to those who may have responsibility for making

  1587
  appointments in the future that they reflect very seriously on the Human Rights Commission experience and work out for themselves what went wrong. They should try to ensure that we do not reach the same position again in future. In terms of this Bill and these proposals, I would say, "Don't create the judicial appointments commission; don't get into that problem again."
  Similar proposals were considered in another place on Monday night—and we know the result of that. I was listening to Lord Goodhart giving his views on that matter on the "Today" programme yesterday, and I paid particular attention because the position of the Liberal Democrats within the structure of the House of Lords is not without some significance. I was trying to work out what could possibly have persuaded a person who I think is knowledgeable to favour the Bill.
  Lord Goodhart said that the judicial appointments commission had to be set up as a matter of urgency. He conceded that things had not been too bad under the last couple of Lord Chancellors, who were decent chaps, but he said that we still desperately needed a judicial appointments commission to protect us from what might happen in future. Decoded, that means that he favours a commission because he is so appalled by the idea of what might happen under the present Lord Chancellor, and under future Lord Chancellors who might be appointed by the present Government.
  Lembit Öpik: There may be another, less crisis-laden explanation. Liberal Democrats are, on the whole, seeking to codify some aspects of the structures of government and the law, which in our view have been left somewhat ad hoc. I do not want to put words into Lord Goodhart's mouth, but I think he would say that as it is strategically right to make that change, and as we have the opportunity to do it now, Liberal Democrats would be loth to pass up that opportunity, because we do not know when we will get another chance.
  Mr. Trimble: I do not get the impression that the noble Lord's approach was as laid back as that, because he emphasised the urgent need to get the commission in position. As I said, I was interested in the fact that he conceded that things had been all right under the two previous Lord Chancellors. Whatever criticisms we might make of those two people, they knew what it was to behave in a judicial manner, and they acted with complete probity over judicial appointments. I shall eschew the temptation to adopt of repeat the personal observations recently made by the Lord Chief Justice about the present incumbent, because he now tells us that those should not be treated too seriously.
  Mr. Pound: Cheeky chappie!
  Mr. Trimble: "Cheerful" was the word, I think, but I presume that the hon. Gentleman has some superior knowledge of the gentleman in question, and I am quite happy to defer to him in that respect.
  As we have already heard, the Bill says that merit is to be the sole basis for appointment. This is where concern about ideas of balance, representation on and reflectiveness arises, because of the tension that exists. It is because I saw that tension reflected in the comment made by the
  1588
  hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that I mentioned earlier that I am returning to that subject. The merit principle must operate purely on an individual basis, when there is a vacancy, with regard to that particular vacancy. It should be—indeed it is, and has been for some time—enshrined in legislation.
  I am not so sure what happened in the 1990s, but I recall that in the 1980s, when we had measures to ensure that appointments were made purely on merit, it seemed rather strange that with High Court appointments, the merit principle always seemed to produce first a Catholic, then a Protestant, then another Catholic, then another Protestant. It was a remarkable coincidence that the merit principle produced alternate Catholics and Protestants, and never a Jew—but thereby hangs another tale. I hope that the merit principle will be properly vindicated in practice, and that it will not be merely the subject of lip service. However, I fear that notions of representativeness, group approaches and implicit quotas will mean that the merit principle will not be fully observed in practice.
  Mr. Mallon: May I pose again the question that I put to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds)? I do not have the same insight into the other place as the right hon. Gentleman, nor the same access to legal tittle-tattle. However, he consistently distinguishes between the non-political appointments system that exists at present, and the potential political element in appointments under the proposed system. Is he saying that senior appointments made under the present system are not essentially political in nature? I do not believe that it is possible to make any appointment that does not have a political configuration—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I think I am bound to remind the hon. Gentleman that he is making an intervention, not a second speech.
  Mr. Trimble: The point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is not unexpected, as it is consistent with his earlier comments about the concept of merit. That is something about which we can argue, but I am concerned that he approaches the concept of merit in a way that allows a host of other factors to be taken into consideration. He pointed out an apparent contradiction in my argument, but I repeat that I prefer the present arrangements to the proposed appointments commission, as political considerations are less likely to be an influence under the present system. As I said, however, I am remarkably impressed by the evident coincidence that attaches to appointments in Northern Ireland.
  I can say no more, as I am not privy to much judicial or legal tittle-tattle these days. Perhaps a person with greater to access to such tittle-tattle would be able to say more about these matters, but I hasten to point out that I do not have that access.
  I have already set out the dangers of the proposed judicial appointments commission. They worry me because the proposal reduces the opportunity for someone to see the matter in the round, as the Lord Chancellor does at present.
  Problems will arise in future if the Government's proposals for the legal system are carried through. I hope that they will not succeed in abolishing the post of

  1589
  Lord Chancellor, but if they do we will have problems when it comes to making appointments. The post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is different from that of Lord Chancellor, and the nature of the people likely to occupy that post will also be different. That is a huge problem, with its own dangers. The debate has been largely good-humoured, but I am seriously disturbed at the Government's approach to these important matters. They display an appalling amateurishness and lack of understanding of the structures with which they are dealing. I am really worried about the vandalism being wreaked on our political, judicial and legal systems by the way in which the Government are proceeding.
  David Burnside: Can my right hon. Friend explain for the education of a non-lawyer how, if and when the appointments were made—which I hope will not be for a long, long time, if ever—they would be more or less political if made according to the commission proposals than if they were made by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister: positions held in the Executive following the Belfast agreement by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)?
  Mr. Trimble: The conclusion of the points that I was making is that I should be opposed to vesting in a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister the functions in the measure. Part of the reason why I came to that conclusion arose from reflections on the way that the structure will—perhaps not intentionally but inadvertently—implicitly bring many political considerations into play. If, as is likely, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were from different political parties with fundamentally different political objectives, it is difficult to see how those appointments could be anything other than the result of an overtly political or quasi-political negotiation. That is a serious problem for the future.
  I do not know how long it will be before the institutions in Northern Ireland are up and running again; it may be some time, but I suspect that they will be and that those structures will function at some point in the future and that there will be huge difficulties in their operation. I say that as someone who is still broadly in favour of the devolution of policing and criminal justice matters—in the right circumstances, which we do not have at present. However, I am concerned that the structures that we are building into the system and the structure of the judicial appointments commission will produce too great a political influence.
  That is the core of our reason for supporting the reasoned amendment. I shall not go through the clauses in detail, nor shall I discuss the provisions towards which we take a more welcoming view. My speech was not intended to be of such length, but that is how it developed. I hope that the Government will give us the opportunity in Committee to have a broad debate on these matters and to include other provisions that cannot come under the long title. I hope, too, that, through what will happen elsewhere, we shall have the opportunity thoroughly to examine the concepts that
  1590
  underlie the Bill and that they can be thought about again and radically changed, and that the Bill—or Act, as it may be by then—will be brought into line with them.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Stephen Pound: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House not only for the fact that was I darting in and out of the Chamber earlier, but because I may have to dart out again before the conclusion of the debate. Very much in the style of employment in the 21st century and the precepts of new Labour, I am multi-tasking between this place, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and the Tobacco Workers Alliance, just along the Corridor.
  I am acutely aware of the fact that no words instil a greater sense of dread and foreboding in the House than those contained in the sentence, "I shall be brief". I shall in fact be brief, although in the context of this debate, I realised that we have moved on somewhat from the days of Timothy Michael Healy and Joseph Biggar, who felt that anything less than five hours was a mere clearing of the throat and anything less than 15 hours did not deserve a sidebar in the Freeman's Journal, but—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind amidst his busy duties that it is a courtesy to the House to sit for the whole of the speech after his own, which may of course last any number of hours.
  Mr. Pound: No Labour Member would ever have any reason to doubt the significance of your judgments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am well aware of it.
  I am delighted to take part in what, if it is not a piece of parliamentary history, may be a part of the establishment of another stage of the parliamentary rubric: the first outing of the Aylesbury razor—a new parliamentary principle whereby the House considers a number of items in the Bill and, very wisely and sensibly, goes through, ticking off the uncontentious ones. That is a superb practice, which should be adopted from now on. If the name of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) is perpetuated in the same way as Occam's was in earlier years, that is both to his credit and to that of that great sage.
  On the principle of the Aylesbury razor, we may be able to dispose of any objection to the offence of gathering intelligence against full-time Prison Service employees because that is uncontentious. The move to make it illegal to seek to influence a prosecutor with the intent of perverting the course of justice is, I hope, uncontentious. It is entirely sensible, as are some of the other provisions, such as placing a duty on the Northern Ireland criminal justice agency to observe human rights.
  Lembit Öpik rose—
  Mr. Pound: I certainly give way to the person who wishes to interject a note of contentiousness.
  Lembit Öpik: The only contention is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said in his speech, although such provisions

  1591
  may not be contentious, surely they already exist in law, so they may survive the Aylesbury razor, but not the accusation of being superfluous.
  Mr. Pound: I appreciate that Orcadian analysis may sometimes supersede the Aylesbury razor, but I hope that we can abjure that today and concentrate on two main issues. The overarching aspect of the Bill was enunciated with the fluency and expertise that one expects of a member of that most inner of inner circles of the establishment, an Oxford-educated lawyer. I refer, of course, to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), who enunciated his objections overall. [HON MEMBERS: "Cambridge."] I apologise to Cambridge, and to Oxford for the imputation.
  I have come to grow familiar with the hon. Gentleman's objections—we have heard them before—but I have also come to have an amount of respect for them. If my travels in the north of Ireland have taught me anything, it is how little I know about the circumstances and realities of life there. He feels that the Bill, as part of the process that flows from the Good Friday agreement, should not even be considered on the Floor of the House because, as he perceives it, the Good Friday agreement has not been fulfilled and the terms have not been adhered to, as he sees them, so anything that flows from that is the fruit of the upas tree, and we simply should not be considering it.
  I very much hope that the measures that we are considering are not only in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, but a vital part of devoloping the consensus that was agreed. Yes, it is not something that would embrace every hon. Member. Yes the points that the hon. Member for Belfast, North makes about the activities of some people cannot be denied, but the fact remains that all human beings have within them the capacity to commit horror as well as to experience it. The circumstances around individuals make them create those appalling situations and participate in those ways. I hope that, by moving into a different form of civil society, even though people will still have it within them to be as they were, they will not need to act that way, and I desperately hope that we can move on from that.
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made an extraordinary suggestion. He is so vastly my intellectual superior that I would not wish to cavil at any of his words, but he seemed to imply that, even if an agency was wholly and utterly unrepresentative of the community that it served, that would not matter if it did a good job. Superficially, that argument is attractive. A police force that is 100 per cent. representative of one particular community might be very good at parking tickets. However, even though elements of the outcome of a monocultural organisation or agency may be efficacious and can be defended, how on earth could everyone within that community feel an identification with, a sense of ownership of and sense of confidence in such an agency? That worries me desperately. A police force or agency anywhere in the world that is entirely of one community could function well, but there would be another side to that. The dangerous side would be the lack of identification or association with the rest of the community.
  Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is doing the familiar thing of setting up a straw man in order to
  1592
  knock it down. When he reflects on what I said, he will realise that I did not advance that proposition. I said that the clear imbalance that exists in the police force was not the result of deliberate discrimination. However, I would point out to him—I did not say this—that, in appointing judges to the highest level, the object of the exercise should be to get the best man for the job. Evidence given to the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs made it clear that
  "it is not the function of the judiciary to represent or reflect any particular group in the community."
  Mr. Pound: It is some years since I heard the expression "the best man for the job". I think I know what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about, but that seems to be an institutional problem rather than an individual one. I still feel—I hope anybody would feel this—that, if we as free citizens give the right to other free citizens to have power and authority over us in enforcing the law, the group of citizens who have power over the others must reflect them in every possible way. The governors must reflect the governed and vice versa.
  We can get into absurd situations, and we dipped a toe into the limpid waters of Lake Absurdity when we started talking about the proportion of left-handed people. However, this is a serious issue. I have been to Garnerville, and spoken to a number of young police recruits. They do not come in, sit down and say, "I am here from this community." One thing that is massively impressive about the new recruits to the Police Service of Northern Ireland is the fact that one cannot immediately identify which community they come from.
  I realise that it is said that, by the age of 12, there are 36 ways in which one can identify a person's community in a brief conversation, but all the people I met at Garnerville seemed to be desperately proud of wearing the uniform of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I did not hear anybody say—well, I wouldn't, would I? — that he or she was a token for one side of the community or the other. I was immensely proud of that body of men and women who are coming through the training school. The fact that they are more representative of the community adds to their stature and augurs well for the future.
  David Burnside: While being understandably proud of Garnerville and everyone standing there wearing a uniform and passing out in the PSNI, can the hon. Gentleman understand the problem that is created for young Protestant boys and girls? They are applying, but feel that they are discriminated against. They feel resentment. They go in on merit and pass all the criteria, but they are turned out because they see a law that discriminates against them because of their religion. All they want to do is to go in as Protestants and Catholics and all be proud of serving the police and the community in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Pound: I am not by nature confrontational, but I cannot help remembering an advertisement that appeared for an American presidential candidate recently. It showed a pair of white hands ripping up a piece of paper that said "Job Offer". Underneath, it said, "He didn't get the job because he wasn't black." If we

  1593
  concentrate on that side of the equation rather than the situation that pertained for many years when people from one community had absolutely no chance of getting a job in certain organisations—
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pound: I shall give way in a second.
  If we talk about the issue in terms of the people mentioned by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) who live in his constituency and are qualified for the job, we are missing two key points: first, that the arrangement is transitional, so I hope that after we have achieved a basis of equality, it he utterly uncontentious; and, secondly, that such discrimination existed in the past. I ask hon. Members to consider how many Catholic prison officers there are in Northern Ireland, and while we are thinking about that, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. Turner: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the implication of his words. Although he did not mention the Royal Ulster Constabulary, it was evident to some of us that that was what he was speaking of. Does he accept that the greatest problem with the RUC's recruitment was the pressure put on Catholics not to apply?
  Mr. Pound: The very first member of the RUC to be killed in the troubles—or certainly one of the first—and if not the last, almost one of the last to be killed, were both Roman Catholics. Catholics did join the RUC, although I entirely accept that there were those who put pressure on them not to do so. One reason why that happened was the dislocation between the community and the RUC. I shall not go into the "Oranges in uniform" slurs that were perpetuated for many years because there were wrong—and a thing of the past from which we may move on. However, no one in the Chamber can remotely deny that large sections of nationalists, republicans and Catholics in Northern Ireland were reluctant to join the RUC because they perceived not only that they were unwelcome, but that it was not their police force. At the end of the day, if one is in trouble and someone comes to one's rescue, one does not ask what religion they are.
  Mr. Donaldson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pound: Of course; how could I not?
  Mr. Donaldson: Is it not the case that despite all the changes and reforms to policing in Northern Ireland that have taken place and the advent of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, one sizeable section of the nationalist community still refuses to support the police, to encourage people to join the police or to participate in district policing partnerships? How does the hon. Gentleman explain that if he supports the current regulations that discriminate against Protestants?
  Mr. Pound: I do not seek to explain that, I will not seek to condone it and I will never excuse it—it is wrong.
  1594
  However, the fact that one group of people takes that position does not invalidate the overall argument that I hope that we are making. I will not defend that group's position. I have tried to understand it, but I have failed. It is wrong—the hon Gentleman and I agree on that. I hope that a more representative Police Service of Northern Ireland will make such postures an irrelevance in the near future.
  Mr. Carmichael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pound: I do not think that I have any choice.
  Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman always has a choice. May I invite him to return to the Bill because he started to make an interesting point on the importance of the judiciary reflecting wider communities and the wider society that I had hoped that he would explore? Does he agree that there is a practical importance to that? For example, a male-dominated judiciary, which is what we have had. has always found it especially difficult to deal with rape cases, so we have a poor record of convictions in such cases. Surely that is the sort of issue on which we should focus.
  Mr. Pound: I will try to resist being sidetracked by rape, but the overall point that the hon. Gentleman makes is precisely right. I cannot think of any community in any society anywhere in the world that has not said, "Yes, leave it to us and we will gradually organically evolve into a more representative group." The United States Congress was mentioned earlier, but, in reality, every single group that was non representative was unable to reform itself without some form of external legislation—it would be unfair of me to refer to Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidates in that context. Every body that I know says, "Leave it to us and we'll be more representative." Every single body I know signally fails to do so until a quota is imposed. We may not like that crude mechanism or blunderbuss, but it works. In a desperately fractured community with a small population we have to take such steps because that is the only way to make such a body represent the community in Northern Ireland. We could talk about that for much longer, but there are other Members who are far more qualified to talk about it than I am.
  The operation of the hon. Member for Aylesbury—the Aylesbury razor—has left me only scraps, but I would like to deal briefly with the separation of paramilitary prisoners at Maghaberry. I am profoundly uncomfortable with many aspects of that separation, and have severe doubts about it. If there were any question of moving into a segregation regime I would enunciate those doubts even more forcefully. Like many hon. Members, I have visited Maghaberry—in fact, I am worried about the amount of time that I spend in prisons—and the experience taught me a number of things.
  The difficulty of being a prison officer was mentioned, and I said earlier that 21 prison officers have been killed. I was wrong—in fact, 29 prison officers have been killed in Northern Ireland since the troubles began. Maghaberry is one of only two prisons in Northern Ireland—Magilligan is the other—and there is also

  1595
  Hydebank Wood young offenders institute. Maghaberry is the only maximum security prison, but it also houses failed asylum seekers and a few women prisoners, because there is no women's prison in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that by and large Ulster women are extremely law-abiding, which I accept, but women prisoners are still accommodated in a house in the grounds of Maghaberry. In some ways, it is a recipe for building a bad prison, as there are little houses dotted around with a helicopter net over the top, and I hope that there will be an improvement when Bush and Roe houses are rebuilt. The present situation is not unique to Northern Ireland, as separation exists in each of the hundred-plus prisons on the prison estate. In some cases, there is an obvious separation of so-called vulnerable prisoners. In others, it is people supporting different football teams, or from different gangs, groups or ethnic formations.
  Like most members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I heard the evidence of Father Kevin Donaghy and Canon Barry Dodds—I see from the official House of Commons report that the Canon's name is spelt as if he were a piece of artillery rather than a clerk in holy orders.
  Mr. McNamara: There is not a conflict.
  Mr. Pound: Indeed, there may be a congruence. Father Kevin, Canon Dodds and John Steele, who formed the Steele review panel, told us that safety of prisoners, both convicted and on remand, and prison staff was paramount. We must give credit to the people who were appointed to make that decision and are experts in the area. I do not like anything that moves us towards the arrangement that pertained in Long Kesh and the Maze, but we must accept separation if it is the only way to operate the prison safely in its present confines. It will throw up other problems, as people will identify with certain groups. one group, the Irish National Liberation Army, is not on ceasefire and is more strongly represented in Maghaberry than anywhere else outside parts of north Belfast where, I hope the whole House agrees, its members are committing the foulest and most disgusting crimes.
  The Government are responding to the situation sensibly, calmly and pragmatically They commissioned and analysed a review, which was representative in the context of our earlier discussions, and came up with a conclusion, the text of which contains the key fact that has not been touched on—namely, that a rebuilt and expanded Maghaberry will be able to order these things differently.
  Personally, I find it surprising not only that Northern Ireland has no women's prison, but that it has just one maximum security prison. We seem to be building prisons at the rate of one a month on this side of the water, but have not done so in the one part of the United Kingdom where there is enough space. Would it not be rather a good idea to build couple of smaller prisons there? I shall leave that to the Secretary of State; I am not in any way proposing additional Government expenditure.
  The Bill has been described as a vehicle with elements being added to it. That is no bad thing, because a vehicle moves forward. The Bill moves the process forward by
  1596
  introducing certain tidying-up elements, the most important of which—a representative judiciary—cannot be allowed to wait any longer. The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked why that provision cannot be put on ice. I disagree with so little of what he says that I feel quite ashamed to say that I wholly disagree with that. The solutions to the problems in the north of Ireland will not be arrived at by clicking our fingers or switching on a light—there must be an organic process that is built up piece by piece. The establishment of a representative judiciary is one of the key pieces of the edifice that we are trying to build to allow people to live in peace and to fulfil the potential of their lives in a safe environment. Surely, that is not too much to ask—it is what we expect in every one of our constituencies.
  Nobody could argue with the fact that a representative judiciary is an essential part of a safe, sane and sustainable civic society. We may disagree about the details, but can we not at least agree with the principle that those who judge us and rule over us should represent the communities that they judge and rule over? That is a basic point on which I hope that the whole House can agree.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I am conscious that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) will soon wish to return to his multi-tasking. I shall be selective in my remarks, because by this stage of the debate many of the main points have been made, and not all of them bear repetition.
  On the hon. Gentleman's comments about recruiting for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, may I put it on the record that I have seldom disagreed more profoundly with any view that I have heard expressed in this Chamber? I urge the hon. Gentleman to re-read the introduction to the Patten report, where he will find Patten accepting that the RUC enjoyed greater cross-community support than many other forces in the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), who is not here at the moment, quoted words uttered by Baroness Amos when she introduced the Bill in another place:
  "All justice systems must continue to evolve. They cannot be allowed to sit still and to ossify or they will cease to meet the needs of modern society."
  I submit that that line of reasoning does not stand up in the present context. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) pointed out, we have had three police Bills in the past five years, and this is the second justice Bill. Ossification is not on the agenda. Indeed, it is the rapidity with which the Government have moved from one Bill to another that has brought doubt and challenged the credibility of their approach.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, once one has cleared away the debris, the simple truth is that the Bill has not been introduced to promote any great issue of principle. Despite the Government's assertions to the contrary, their primary purpose is not to improve the justice system, although some important changes are proposed, not all of which are controversial. The underlying motive for the Bill is political and involves trying to resuscitate a failed

  1597
  political process and induce an unreconstructed terrorist organisation to look more favourably on the Northern Ireland justice system. We know all that because of the Bill's origins in the Hillsborough negotiations, the purpose of which was to recreate a climate in which the devolved Assembly and Executive could be reconstructed. The joint declaration of the two Governments contained a commitment to the Bill, made on the understanding that at least some of its contents would please the provisional republican movement.
  We have been reminded that the criminal justice review in 2000 recommended the establishment of an appointments commission when, and only when, devolution was up and running. The Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 was consistent with that. However, although we are now in the context of suspended devolution, with no early signs of that situation changing, the Government are suddenly and dramatically legislating for the establishment of a judicial appointments commission before devolution. Baroness Amos explained in another place:
  "That should make an important contribution towards enhancing public confidence in the Northern Ireland justice system."
  I argue that the reverse is the case. Have the Government not yet realised that concessions of that sort are contemptible in themselves and downright objectionable to true democrats? Moreover, that approach is self-defeating because the more the Government make one-sided concessions, the less acceptable the whole process becomes. Parts of the Bill, particularly the first seven clauses, devalue the justice system in Northern Ireland into a bargaining counter. What recipe is that for encouraging public confidence? The Government claim that the Bill will create a
  "better, more modern justice system"
  for the Province, which
  "will benefit all the people of Northern Ireland in equal part"—
  whatever that may mean—and that it will lead to
  "even higher levels of trust and confidence in the justice system."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 1091–92.]
  In fact, it will do no such thing because it will politicise key aspects of Northern Ireland's justice system, especially judicial appointments.
  In that regard, one need look no further than clause 1, which empowers the Lord Chancellor, rather than the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, to establish a judicial appointments commission. That is fine while present arrangements last, but if I understand correctly the debate in another place, the Government envisage circumstances in which those powers will pass to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. When those powers pass to an ordinary party politician, the scope for political influence will increase enormously.
  Much the same goes for clause 4, which will increase political influence in the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lords Justices of Appeal. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will no longer merely be consulted, but will "make a recommendation" to the Prime Minister. In other words, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must agree on a
  1598
  candidate to recommend to the Prime Minister who, in turn, will make the recommendation to the Queen. It is hard to envisage a more political process than that for an appointment.
  In his opening speech, the Secretary of State declared his intention to resurrect the original clause 5. I urge him to move with great caution. Clause 5, as originally drafted, weakened the power of the Lord Chief Justice in cases of removal or suspicion. Under the 2002 Act, the Lord Chief Justice had to agree before the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister could suspend someone. In the original draft of the Bill, he had merely to be consulted. The key point is that security of tenure for senior judges is one of the most important safeguards of their independence, and we undermine it at our peril.
  Much has been said about the guiding principles relating to appointments being made on merit alone, and being reflective of the community. Perhaps I did not make my point quite. clearly enough when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North. The point that I wished to make, which others have made as well, is that there is, at the very least, tension between those principles. Indeed, they are conflicting principles. I can envisage only one way of resolving that tension, and that is through the creation of a pool of merit. I did not mean to imply that I was in favour of that; indeed, the experiences of the. police force warn strongly against the creation of such a pool. My argument is that, as the Bill stands, that is the logical way in which matters will proceed in practice We should therefore resist the proposal.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Does not the experience of the Police Service of Northern Ireland show that, in order to get the required composition, the standards for entry into the pool of merit are lowered, and we end up with a lower standard of candidate as a result?
  Mr. Hunter: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. That point also featured in their lordships' debate. It was a matter of worry to several Members of that House that, were such a pool system to emerge, even de facto, it would automatically result in a lowering of standards. I agree with my hon. Friend on that. I should also like to make the wider point that, in practice, having organisations reflect and represent the community has, over the years, meant disadvantaging the pro-Union people of Northern Ireland.
  Another justification for the Bill has been that it will lead to higher trust and confidence in the judicial system. I submit that there is no need whatever to aspire to that. I was amazed by the comments of the hon. Member for Dundee, East on that point. I look back over the last 30 years or so, and I try to recall occasions on which there has been a serious lack of public confidence in the judiciary, but I cannot think of any. I am sure that they were minimal, at the very least. In that regard, I bow to the experience and judgment of the noble Lord Mayhew, who, both as Attorney-General and as Secretary of State, had long experience in these matters. He concluded, in a debate in the other place, that
  "the judiciary of Northern Ireland, appointed as it has been by the Lord Chancellor, has earned a superb reputation for its fairness and impartiality, to say nothing of its courage and dedication to the rule of law "—[official Report, House of Lords,16 December 2003; Vol. 642, c. 1107.]

  1599
  The truth is that public confidence in the judiciary is deservedly very high, and has been so over the years. There is no need whatever for that issue even to feature on the Government's agenda.
  The 2002 Act required only lay members of the appointments commission to be representative of the community, but the Bill extends the requirement to all members. It provides that membership of the commission must reflect the community in Northern Ireland. We have yet to hear from the Government a clear reason for the change. Why are judicial members now to be subject to the requirement? Why is the change proposed so soon after the 2002 Act? We are entitled to speculate that we know the answer. It lies in Hillsborough and the purpose of the ensuing joint declaration.
  How are we to define the community in Northern Ireland? Sinn Fein is now the dominant non-Union party, and it remains what it always has been: indivisible from the Provisional IRA, whose failure to decommission and renounce violence caused the suspension of devolution.
  The criminal justice review was right to recommend that an appointments commission should be established only once devolution was in place. So long as devolution is suspended, it is a fundamental mistake to believe that public confidence in the judiciary will somehow be enhanced by trying to make it more reflective of Northern Ireland's fractured society cannot be right to amend the judicial system to try to make it more acceptable to those who break the law.
  The Bill was originally drafted to make the judicial system in Northern Ireland more acceptable to the provisional republican movement. It has subsequently been caught up in the hasty and ill-thought-out decision to abolish the office of the Lord Chancellor. It should be rejected on both scores.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Several references have been made to the Bill's origins and the political motivation behind it. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr Hunter) referred to Hillsborough, which is in my constituency, and the joint declaration that emerged from the discussions that took place there on implementing the Belfast agreement, and issues that arose after the agreement.
  Many aspects of the joint declaration go much further than the Belfast agreement. It introduced proposals that the agreement did not envisage and were therefore not the subject of the referendum that was held immediately afterwards. No one can claim of at the proposals that emerged from the joint declaration have any democratic legitimacy through the referendum. Aspects of the Bill fall into that category. They are additions to the provisions and regulations of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.
  Almost all major legislation in recent years has dealt with implementing the Belfast agreement, correcting mistakes in it or adding to its provisions. Clearly, the Bill has a political origin and is not simply about tidying up or improving arrangements for dispensing justice in Northern Ireland. It is about satisfying specific political agendas.
  1600
  The Minister knows that confidence in the justice system is important to ensure that it operates effectively. Some hon. Members have questioned the confidence of at least one section of the community in it and suggested that that at least partly justifies the Bill. I have yet to learn of any significant body of evidence—presented here today, or presented in any other form—that supports the accusations suggesting that our judicial system and the judges who are part of it are unfair and biased.
  Like every other MP, I am visited now and then by constituents who bring complaints. They feel that they were treated unfairly as a result of a court hearing, or they are the victims of a crime and do not feel that the court went far enough in applying the rule of law and imposing a sentence. I am currently dealing with the case of a young lad in my constituency who was seriously assaulted by four youths. He has been in hospital for a long time with significant brain damage; the four youths were eventually sentenced for causing an affray, and were given sentences that the victim's family felt were wholly inadequate in terms of reflecting the damage done to their son.
  It so happens that that family is Protestant. Many of my Protestant constituents come to me from time to time to complain about some grievance involving the application of the law. Any suggestion that the Protestant community is entirely satisfied with every aspect of the judicial system and that the Roman Catholic community is not constitutes a complete misrepresentation of the position. Any kind of poll would establish that most decent, law-abiding people in Northern Ireland support the judicial system. Only those with something to fear from the law have a grievance. I am afraid that at least part of the Government's intention is to assuage the so-called concerns expressed by some of those who have never really recognised our system of justice in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Dodds: My hon. Friend is right. A number of us have mentioned the composition of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. Is it not the case that there is no basis for any perception of imbalance in terms of the religious background of the judiciary?
  Mr. Donaldson: Indeed. I made that point to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) when he argued that the Bill was essential because of a widespread lack of confidence in the judicial system and the appointment of the judiciary in Northern Ireland. He gave no evidence to support his argument, and, as my hon. Friend says, the reality does not reflect it.
  Mr. Carmichael: There are other ways in which the judiciary can often be unrepresentative or imbalanced. It is not just a question of religion. The hon. Gentleman himself has identified a number of difficulties with the judicial process. The drift of legislation over the past 20 years has been towards fettering judicial discretion because of a perceived lack of representativeness. That legislation merely treated symptoms, whereas this Bill strikes at the disease itself.
  Mr. Donaldson: I would accept that but for the fact that my argument is not really that the system cannot be

  1601
  reformed. Every system can be reformed and improved. Like other Members, I continually receive letters from people throughout the United Kingdom who are campaigning for justice—for this, that and every other cause—because of some perceived injustice perpetrated on them by the courts. If the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) analysed the judiciary in Northern Ireland, I dare say that he would discover that few of them come from working-class, Protestant backgrounds. I will not suggest that because that is the case we should necessarily radically reform the appointments system. We are not arguing against the principle of the appointments system; it is the political motivation behind it that concerns us.
  In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State discussed the benefits that have accrued from the Belfast agreement, and he laboured the point on policing. I say to the Minister—and through him to the Secretary of State—that if he were to take a poll in my constituency of community attitudes to policing institutions today and compare it with polls taken in 1997 and 1998, he would find that there is greater dissatisfaction today with policing than there was before the Belfast agreement. That is because of growing criminality, antisocial behaviour and paramilitary activity and the fact that the police cannot respond because they do not have the resources.
  I get more complaints about the lack of police response to crimes in my constituency than I did when the Royal Ulster Constabulary was policing my local community. On the ground, that is the reality of the Patten report and the downsizing of the police in Northern Ireland, and it is also the reality of the impact of 50:50 recruitment. The police have not been able to recruit as many officers as they have lost, and many of the district command units are significantly under resourced, which is the case in Lisburn in my constituency.
  Mrs. Iris Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the stance taken this evening by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is breathtakingly hypocritical?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady should withdraw that remark. It is not a term that we use in relation to any hon. Member of this House.
  Mrs. Robinson: I am happy to withdraw that particular comment. I am against the shocking and disappointing 50:50 recruitment policy in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann says that he is against 50:50 recruitment, but his former colleague for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Ken Maginnis, recommended it.
  Mr. Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. If she had used the term "stretching credibility", it would have made her point. I recently read comments by Monsignor Dennis Faul in the Belfast News Letter, who pointed to the fact that 50:50 recruitment was first proposed by Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, who was then the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. As a member of his
  1602
  party at that time, I knew that he advocated 50:50 recruitment, and that point came out in the Patten report. We remember that he welcomed the appointment of Chris Patten to chair the independent commission on policing, and he has lived to regret that welcome. It stretches credibility for Ulster Unionist Members to campaign against 50:50 recruitment when the former hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone first advocated it.
  On policing, the problem is about confidence not only in the judiciary but in the rule of law generally. The SDLP is pushing hard for its proposal that the full-time police reserve should be wound up in 2005. In the Lisburn district command unit in my constituency that would mean that 80 full-time reserve officers would be removed. Who will replace those officers in an already under-resourced police service that cannot respond to many of the calls that come in to the police station—some of them 999 calls? While the Secretary of State will trumpet what he regards as the progress that has been made on policing, district commanders—I mean no reflection on the quality of the police officers that we have—do not have the resources needed to cope with the levels of crime, antisocial behaviour and paramilitary activity on our streets.
  We have previously stated that we do not in principle oppose the idea of greater independence in judicial appointments. Transparency, accountability, openness and independence at all levels of government and in the administration of government are to be encouraged. Of course, the Northern Ireland Office has not always practised such transparency in government. One thinks, for example, of the operation of the Anglo-Irish—now the British-Irish—intergovernmental conference, which has lacked transparency in its deliberations. We could do with a bit more transparency in government in Northern Ireland.
  Our difficulty with the Government's approach to constitutional reform is that it is often ill thought out and inappropriate in terms of how it implements change. As I have said, the motivation behind the introduction of the Bill is the joint declaration, which was agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government, with the involvement—to some degree—of some of the political parties who were present at Hillsborough during the negotiations.
  We have been talking this evening about justice and confidence in the system of justice. However, a key proposal in the joint declaration is an amnesty for IRA terrorists who are on the run from justice. That is a travesty of justice. It undermines confidence in the rule of law in Northern Ireland to suggest that a terrorist who has committed a serious crime—up to and including murder—can effectively walk free without fear of going to prison for that crime. That is what the Government propose in the joint declaration, which is also the source of the Bill.
  We hear lectures from hon. Members on the other side of the House about the need to build confidence in the judicial system. Can they explain to my constituents who have been the victims of IRA terrorism how it upholds the rule of law and our system of justice to grant a de facto amnesty to IRA terrorists who have

  1603
  committed some of the worst atrocities during what was known as the troubles in Northern Ireland? That is what the joint declaration does. How will that build confidence in our system of justice, especially in the Unionist community, which suffered probably more than most at the hands of the IRA. There is no justice in such cases.
  Let us be frank about saying that the Government will bend over backwards to assuage the concerns of the nationalist community. They will introduce Bill after Bill to address those concerns, but they heap coals on the heads of the Unionist community with the proposal in the joint declaration for an amnesty for IRA terrorists who are on the run. The DUP will not support, endorse or give credence to such a proposal. Indeed, we will oppose it vigorously and it will continue to be a major problem for political progress in Northern Ireland. I urge the Government to scrap any notion of an amnesty for IRA. terrorists on the run. That, I believe, in a single move. would help to increase Unionist confidence in the rule of law and the system of justice in Northern Ireland.
  The Bill could politicise the system of appointing judges in Northern Ireland. I fully support the amendment tabled by the official Opposition, and I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). It is important that the Government reflect on the proposals and think again, especially on the political motivation behind the proposals in the Bill. We support a system of judicial appointment that is truly independent, transparent and fair, and free from political motivation and politicisation. We know the difficulties that that can cause in Northern Ireland. The Bill as currently drafted does not meet those tests, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) said.
  Some of the proposals in the Bill clearly have merit. It should be noted that, if they are important to the functioning and administration of criminal justice in Northern Ireland, they should have been included in the 2002 Act. I have not heard a clear explanation from the Government as to why they were not. There are key aspects that have been implemented in England and Wales that we are waiting for in Northern Ireland— antisocial behaviour orders, for example. I recently sent to the Minister my party's response to the consultation document on antisocial behaviour. I urge him to act quickly, because such behaviour is becoming endemic in many parts of Northern Ireland, some of it fuelled by the paramilitaries, but much of it not We need action on that.
  Mr. Spellar: Will the hon. Gentleman at least give us credit for having compressed the consultation period, precisely so that we can introduce legislation and get it through before the summer?
  Mr. Donaldson: I will give the Minister credit when the legislation comes before this House—and the quicker the better.
  The Bill grants the Prison Service greater options in respect of transferring prisoners. I am currently dealing with a case involving a prisoner with severe psychological problems who needs professional help that he cannot get within the prison system in Northern
  1604
  Ireland. The Bill may help with other aspects of the Prison Service, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North, we hope that the power will be used only as a last resort, to prevent unnecessary hardship for relatives in respect of visitation rights.
  The Bill gives the Attorney—General the power to issue human rights guidance to criminal justice organisations, advising them on how to carry out certain functions. That appears on the face of it to be uncontroversial, but the critical matter will be the nature of the advice given. While an offence of influencing a prosecutor seems uncontroversial, we are not sure how it will work in practice. It is hoped that the measure will not be used to prevent legitimate representations from being made or elected representatives from making justified public comment.
  Elements of the Bill are sensible, but the fact that we are debating them only two years after the 2002 Act clearly highlights the Government's disjointed approach to key issues in Northern Ireland. They seem to operate and legislate for Northern Ireland on the basis of meeting the demands that are wheeled out from time to time by some of the more vocal elements in our society, and that is why some aspects of the Bill are flawed and they need to take more time to reflect on them before pressing ahead.
  The Government have acted in haste in constitutional reform generally, and in the Bill in particular. They must start to learn from some of the mistakes that have been made. The people of Northern Ireland will not be well served if this legislation needs to be amended because of the Government's haste in appeasing those who are, and have always been, very vocal in their criticism of the justice system in Northern Ireland, without any real justification.
  It is clear that it is not the right time, politically or constitutionally, to proceed with key elements of the Bill. The Opposition's amendment therefore has much merit, and I urge the Minister to consider it carefully.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: The debate has ranged far and wide and occasionally rather far from the Bill's terms of reference, but that is to be expected given the Bill's context and the circumstances in our communities in Northern Ireland.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, we welcome the Bill, which is the second or third attempt to get right and implement the criminal justice review, allied as it was to the reform of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Such numerous attempts to get matters right while accusing other parties of not fulfilling their obligations under the Good Friday agreement ring very hollow indeed, particularly when it is a Government source who is exhorting others to perform to the fullness of that agreement.
  I welcome the Bill because it endeavours to bring about at least partial real reform, and to ensure that we have a reflective judiciary. There is a duty on criminal justice agencies to have regard for international human rights standards, and the Bill makes it an offence, among other things, to influence the Director of Public

  1605
  Prosecutions. But three elements that were omitted from the previous legislation have been omitted again from the Bill. When I asked the Secretary of State about the DPP's referring to the police ombudsman cases involving allegations of police misconduct, I was less than enthused by his answer. In essence, he said, "Don't expect me to answer that question now, but we'll take it up in more detail in Committee." Clarity of thought at this stage would have been very desirable, in order to provide proper interpretation of what is a multi-interpretable provision.
  The situation was very simple. The review proposed that if the DPP encountered an allegation of misconduct, it should be referred — properly, constitutionally and statutorily—to the police ombudsman. However, a new concept and new wording has been added, to the effect that such an allegation needs only to "appear" to be proved. That means that the DPP has a judicial decision to make virtually of his own accord. We hope that that will be remedied in Committee.
  There is also the question, which was raised earlier, of the appointment of the panel of senior judges. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister will make joint recommendations to the Prime Minister, who in turn will take cognisance of, and have due regard for, those recommendations. The proposal in the criminal justice review report seems not to have been straightforwardly and fully implemented, in that another layer of decision making has intervened between the recommendations of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and the ultimate appointment as made by the Prime Minister.
  As I said earlier, the Bill is part of the process of fulfilling undertakings made in the Good Friday agreement. There are other matters that remain unfulfilled—they have been referred to in somewhat emotive terms, and correctly so—in respect of the other parties that signed up to the agreement.
  Much has been said time and again—and I can only emphasise it on the basis of my own experience and the experience of those in my constituency—about the continuation of horrendous punishment beatings and worse in my community. We are faced with the audacity, the offence, that elected representatives of Sinn Fein—let me be blunt about it—to the Assembly have recommended to my constituents, to the old people who have suffered attacks and burglaries in my constituency, that they do not under any circumstances approach the PSNI, but should instead address their problems of justice to something called "restorative justice".
  "Restorative justice" is a very worthwhile and important aspect of community, particularly in Northern Ireland, but it is embryonic and has not had its conditions laid down. Yet we have growing up in our constituency communities groups calling themselves "restorative justice" groupings, which are simply fronts for quasi-paramilitaries and sometimes not so quasi paramilitaries. Fulfilment of the requirement for restorative justice, allied to the police as restorative justice is, should be dealt with as a matter of grave urgency.
  That also applies to the intimidation and other activities—punishment beatings, drug trafficking and protection rackets—carried out by the other
  1606
  paramilitaries: the loyalists, the Provisional IRA, the Real IRA, the dissident IRA, and any other groups one cares to mention. These are all aspects of non-fulfilment of terms of reference in the agreement. That is why it is important that we take our opportunity in Committee to address the matters that are missing from these proposals, so that we can sign off for the criminal justice review.
  At least the Government could then say, "We fulfilled our part in that aspect of the Good Friday agreement", and they would not have egg on their face because of the counter-accusation, "Why do you talk about us not fulfilling things? Why do you talk about the DUP refusing to participate in the Executive, the joint Administration? Why do you talk about the UUP withdrawing from the structure set up under the Good Friday agreement?" There are deficiencies all round. At least the Government should remove their own deficiencies.
  In speaking to the reasoned amendment, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) presented little argument for its terms, but gave a wide-ranging discourse on many aspects of justice, policing, security and even constitutional matters in Northern Ireland. That is fair enough. They all have to be put into their context.
  I should like to refer to one aspect that the hon. Gentleman dealt with: the separation of prisoners at Maghaberry prison. He quoted at length from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which dealt with the matter, and emphasised, although he did not look me straight in the eye, that its decision was unanimous and that therefore I as a member was party to it. I made a written submission objecting to the Committee's conclusion. That objection was put to the Committee and rejected. I did not think that I would have the audacity to file a minority report on a single issue like that, but my record is there in writing.
  I do not think that that decision was made on the basis of political expedience. I think that there was a real danger to prisoners, because in Maghaberry there are not only republican and loyalist political prisoners, but also so-called ordinary, decent criminals, as they are referred to in Northern Ireland, as well as illegal immigrants in custody. So there are at least four categories, and if one divides the loyalist paramilitaries and the republican paramilitaries into further subgroups, one has a mess. It was to do with the danger to criminals within the prison that the separation, rather than segregation,was made. I have a very clear understanding of the difference.
  To return to the Bill, it is an attempt—the third, I believe—to make the judiciary in Northern Ireland more understanding and more open to the public so that what is happening is clearer to the ordinary man in the street. Justice cannot be seen as a person with a long wig sitting in England dictating what happens in the system. That is putting it rather crudely, but that is the image that many people have, and the Bill is an attempt to introduce some transparency in the way in which people are selected for judicial appointments. I agree with everyone who has said that selection must be based clearly on merit, but it must also be seen to be open and not an old boys' network. I hope that the provisions will

  1607
  help to achieve that. They are part of an ongoing process that I hope will successfully conclude, in respect of the criminal justice review, when the Bill is passed.
  There are many other issues. I am tempted to go down the road of speaking about various aspects of policing that have cropped up in this evening's debate. As a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, I give a strong indication, if not of a financial interest, at least of a vested opinionated interest in its workings.
  The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) referred to 50–50 recruiting. If, under the new dispensation, we want to convert a police force that was something like 93 per cent. Protestant and make it acceptable to, and representative of, the entire community in a reasonable time, what is the alternative? Even with 50–50 recruitment it will take some 15 to 18 years for community proportionality to be reflected in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Without the 50–50 arrangement, we would have to double that period, but can the whole community afford to have such a substantial number of people withholding their consent and failing to support the police?
  As it is, it will be an uphill struggle because of Sinn Fein's non-involvement, for its own particular reasons, in policing. I state clearly that it is attempting to establish its own police services in our communities through the so-called restorative justice committees, which are accusing, convicting and executing people—particularly young people. There are many tragedies such as multiple suicides of young men in parts of Belfast, which are brought about by the continued pressure of paramilitaries on those communities. It is also reflected—perhaps less dramatically—in the problems and behaviour of young people right across our communities, both nationalist and Unionist.
  Mrs. Iris Robinson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the failure of Catholics to join what was then the Royal Ulster Constabulary was down to the Catholic Church's encouragement not to support the state, as well as the threat of violence from the IRA?
  Mr. McGrady: The hon. Lady asked a legitimate question, the second part of which I can accept. Particularly in the last 30 years, anyone in the Catholic community who had the audacity or the bravery to join the RUC took a severe risk, but many did—many, but not enough. However, I do not accept that the first part of the hon. Lady's question is justifiable. I must say, even though it may cause offence to Unionist Members, that the RUC was seen—rightly or wrongly—to be a Protestant police force for a Protestant people. That was traditional in our community and was handed down in the expressions of the fathers of the Unionist parties at the time. They advised their people not to employ Catholics. The atmosphere created was that Catholics were not welcome to join the police. Theoretically and statutorily, they all had rights—
  Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McGrady: No, I have only one minute to go.
  Everyone had rights theoretically, but in practice it was a very chill house for Catholics, and people must accept that.
  1608
  In addition, there was the whole burden of the troubles. We must remember that it was the Catholic community who mainly suffered from the Provisional IRA's campaign, and they who, in turn, paid the price for it through what were sometimes extremely one-sided actions by the then RUC. Innumerable honourable men and women performed their duties exceptionally well, but the general ethos was anti-Catholic. That is why we must have the 50–50 split, and why it must continue if we are to have a police service that reflects the community.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) in supporting our reasoned amendment. The debate has been well informed, but sadly, it takes place against the background that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has so ably described. The sad situation in Northern Ireland is that the punishment beatings, the racketeering, the exclusions and even the pressure towards suicide among young people have all got worse since the joint agreement.
  It is against that background, and following the elections in October and the suspension of the Assembly, that we are considering the Bill, which has its antecedents in the joint declaration of 2003. The joint declaration makes it clear that the devolution of policing and criminal justice should take place
  "within the lifetime of the next Assembly" —
  that is, assuming that the Assembly is up and running—
  "on a basis that is robust and workable and broadly supported by the parties."
  Clearly, that is not the case.
  Paragraph 5 of annexe 2 says:
  "The Annex is written on the basis that arrangements for devolving policing and justice will need to be agreed between the parties" —
  we have seen clearly tonight that the parties do not agree about them—
  "and subsequently between the British Government and the Executive, and that these arrangements must be robust and workable. The British Government will wish to give careful consideration to the views of the parties on all of the matters below."
  Then comes the important sentence at the end of paragraph 5, which says:
  "Definitive acts of completion, independently monitored, would provide the necessary context for addressing and agreeing the practicalities of such further devolution as quickly as possible."
  The Opposition say to the Government that the Bill is therefore premature.
  The debate has been well informed, and it is a pity that the situation in Northern Ireland is not more settled. I defer tonight to all the Members who represent the Northern Ireland people, because they understand what is happening there. Many of them have lived with it for many years, and they understand the horrors and difficulties of what is going on in the Province.
  It is sad that this House, through debates such as this, and through all the statutory instruments that we deal with in Committee, must effectively govern the Province of Northern Ireland, although we would like to see a devolved institution making its own decisions.

  1609
  Many constructive speeches have been made tonight. I take on board in particular the bravery of the two speeches by SDLP Members, who so robustly and graphically told us what the situation is like now. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) talked about, among other things, the transfer of prisoners to the mainland.
  I shall deal with one or two matters that are not in the first seven clauses of the Bill, because I want to deal with the minor matters first and then the first seven clauses, because they are the most controversial. First, I want to talk about the transfer of prisoners. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury quoted from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report on the Steele commission's segregation decision concerning Maghaberry prison, and I shall do the same. My hon. Friend and I visited that prison and we saw for ourselves what went on there.
  I shall quote from paragraph 44 of the Select Committee report. I accept that the hon. Member for South Down produced his own minority report, and it is interesting that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), who supported the Government's decision in the Steele review, signed up to it.
  Paragraph 44 of the Select Committee report states:
  "Nonetheless we have to record our belief that the decision—taken, as we see it, contrary to the balance of the facts and arguments presented to us—was a dangerous one, most especially for the public servants who will have to implement it and live with its consequences."
  The situation in Maghaberry prison is potentially very difficult. We will want to look carefully at those clauses in the Bill that deal with the transfer of prisoners to the mainland. We will want to strengthen them to ensure that any such transfer happens only when really necessary, in an emergency situation. The prisoners involved must also agree to such a transfer, so that their safety can be protected
  David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the excellent idea offered by my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)? Her suggestion was that republican prisoners in Northern Ireland should be transferred to our neighbours in the Irish Republic. Under the jurisdiction of the Republic, those republican prisoners could return to their ancestral home, and serve out their time under the authority of the south. That would be an excellent example of cross-border co-operation.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I do not accept that idea, as the quid pro quo would be that the Republic would require us to take some of their more dangerous prisoners into the north. The provision that dangerous prisoners may be transferred to the mainland must be used sparingly.
  Mr. Spellar: I just want to point out that the suggested course of action would be against a law passed by the previous Conservative Government.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am glad that my predecessors shared my sensible view of the matter.
  The Bill is being presented against a background of political uncertainty. In Standing Committee, we will need to examine carefully its raison d'ôtre. The words of
  1610
  Lord Mayhew are worth bearing in mind in that regard. He has immense experience, both of Northern Ireland and of the post of Attorney-General. He told the other place that
  "Throughout the past 30 years, the judiciary of Northern Ireland, appointed as it has been by the Lord Chancellor, has earned a superb reputation for its fairness and impartiality".
  We will therefore want to examine why the criminal justice system is being politicised, as our reasoned amendment contends. Lord Mayhew usefully added:
  "Nor could anyone point to any significant or telling imbalance in the staffing of the High Court or the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. Their members were appointed by the Lord Chancellor, solely on merit and I am sure always consulting the Lord Chief Justice of the day. In my experience it so happens that, if anything, marginally more appointments were made from those with Catholic backgrounds." —[Official Report, House of Lords,16 December 2003; Vol. 665, c. 1107–08.]
  That final remark is especially pertinent.
  We will want to look carefully and in detail at why the Bill proposes to set up a separate judicial appointments board, and why it will alter the way in which the Lord Chief Justice and the Lords justices of Appeal are appointed.
  I shall return to those controversial clauses in a moment, after I have commented on some of the excellent contributions to the debate. I was very struck by the remark made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) —my right hon. Friend—who said that the Belfast agreement committed the parties to equality of treatment and opportunity, not equality of outcome. That is probably one of the most pertinent remarks to have been made in the debate. Citing his experience as a lawyer who used to be in favour of the appointments commission, he said that he had changed his mind and considered the proposal dangerous. When a Member of Parliament of such experience says that, the rest of us must sit up and take note.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), who is a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, also made a good speech. He said that the proposal to transfer prisoners to the mainland—and he thought that they would go to Scotland in particular—could be regarded by the nationalists as akin to transportation. He said that the provision could become a political weapon for paramilitaries. Other hon. Members made the same point.
  I think that the hon Member for Belfast, North made the point that the Bill could be turned into a bargaining position as part of the political process in due course. That is one of the reasons why we proposed our amendment; we believe that the Bill is part of a political process whereby too many concessions have been made to the IRA and its satellites without receiving from them in return enough commitment to the peace process. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury was exactly right about that. If organisations want to participate in the democratic process they have to demonstrate democratic credentials in return.
  I shall return to the controversial clauses—clauses I to 7—and especially to the paradox shown by the provision under clause 2(1) where it is stated that the appointments commission has to be "representative of the community" while clause 3 states that appointment is to be solely
  "on the basis of merit"

  1611
  Those two statements cannot both be true at the same time; either the commission can represent the community or it can be appointed on merit.
  That gives rise to a degree of doubt about the true impartiality of the new appointments procedure. The commission is to be made up of a chairman—the Lord Chief Justice—seven members of the legal profession and five lay members. The only way that it could work, as several Members have pointed out, would be if there were a pool of judges from whom to select, but as there are not many judges in Northern Ireland, it will be quite difficult to ensure that we select the best possible candidates.
  A core value of our justice system is that it is independent of all political interference. My fear is that appointments under the Bill will be seen as subject to political interference. The appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and Lords Justices of Appeal through recommendations to the Prime Minister, who may or may not accept such recommendations and who then makes a recommendation to the Queen, makes it look as though political interference could affect the criminal justice system.
  With the Bill, we are going backwards, not forwards. It is a great pity that the Government did not do what they set out in the joint agreement. They should have consulted all the parties properly to see whether it was realistic to introduce the Bill. It is a poor way to legislate. We have had three police Bills over the past six years; this is the second criminal justice Bill in the past three years. The Government are proposing measures that are not properly thought out and we shall want to examine the Bill in great detail in Committee I hope that we shall be able to amend it.
  In considering the whole process, the Government need to find a way to ensure that the devolved Assembly is brought back into operation as quickly as is reasonable in the circumstances to return stability and normality to the Province. Having heard the Secretary of State on the "Today" programme this morning, I have some fears; the Government are not coming up with proposals for moving the process on.
  We fear that, if we do not move the process on, it will move backwards, which would be a great pity. Although the situation in the Province remains serious, the number of killings and bombings and the most serious terrorist offences has reduced—[Interruption.]—dramatically. Indeed; I accept the Minister's sedentary comment. It will be a great pity if we get the Bill wrong and confidence in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland went backwards because it was seen as politicised.
  I urge the House to support our amendment.
  6.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office(Mr. John Spellar): I am grateful to hon. Members who have participated in the debate, although I expect that a greater number will attend Northern Ireland questions next Wednesday, prior to the Budget. A considerable number of points have been raised, and I shall address them in Committee if I cannot cover them all in the time available. I shall deal with the regrettable Opposition amendment in a brief rant towards the end of my speech.
  1612
  I certainly take the point raised very strongly by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) about the ongoing activity of the Provisional IRA, although we need to reflect, as was indicated in the exchange with the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), on the considerable improvement that has taken place. We always need to get that balance right. I obviously depart from the hon. Member for Belfast, North on the conclusions that he draws. He implies that the provisions are somehow concessions to those groups. That is not the case at all. Indeed, a number of the controversial issues that we are describing involve the timing of matters that were already agreed in 2002, when the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill was passed. The hon. Member for Belfast, North and other hon. Members also asked questions about other legislation, comparing it with needs on the ground, and I strongly reject the implication that we were not responding.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) rightly talked about the problems of racial attacks. Indeed, only today, a regrettable, racist anti-Chinese leaflet has been circulating in south Belfast. Not only have I issued a very strong condemnatory statement, but the police are taking strong action. The hon. Gentleman ought to acknowledge the proactive role that the police are taking, and there has been a sizeable dip in the number of racial attacks.
  We recognise that there is considerable scope to improve legislation. That is precisely why we have published our legislative proposals on giving courts increased sentencing powers in respect of attacks that are provoked by hatred of one form or another. That sends a clear message to the perpetrators and a great message of reassurance to those who could be victims, as well as putting a weapon in the hand of the judiciary. Consultation ends on 9 April, and we want to introduce the proposals as soon as possible afterwards.
  Of course antisocial behaviour is also a significant problem, and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) rightly raised the concerns that his constituents have expressed. I suspect that similar concerns are raised by constituents of Members of Parliament right across the United Kingdom. As I told a delegation from Magherafelt recently, we face a paradox: the number of recorded crimes has declined with proactive police action, but there is greater insecurity in many areas as well. A lot of that is linked not just to what is defined in legislation as crime, but to antisocial and intolerable behaviour.
  It is true that we could not do a straight read-across from the legislation in England and Wales, because of the different administrative and local government structures. To be blunt, I do not think that we moved quickly enough on that, but I take the point that has been made a couple of times by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). We have moved on the issue: we had the consultation in principle, which has already developed into major support, and we now have the consultation in detail. As I have indicated, I am bringing that forward to 9 April, precisely so that we can deal with it as quickly as possible. I know from the experience in England and Wales that we will then need to ensure that all parts of the prosecution and justice system use their powers under antisocial behaviour legislation. That is equally important in terms of diminishing paramilitary activity.

  1613
  The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned those who try to refer cases outside the justice system. There will now be an effective mechanism to deal with those cases, which are causing such problems. We have been doing more than that: we have also introduced reparation orders in youth justice matters, and we have been involving the perpetrators with their victims. Again, that is starting to have an impact on changing people's behaviour and the atmosphere on the ground. So it is not true that we are ignoring those very significant problems. We are considering a number of issues that we need to tackle, and we are doing so in the Bill
  Mr. Carmichael: The Minister has dealt very well with matters that are not in the Bill but could be in it. Will he address one matter that is in the Bill and perhaps should not be—clause 6 on influencing a prosecutor? I asked the Secretary of State whether he could explain the difference between that and the common-law offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice, but he did not do so. I have since noticed that there is one difference. The maximum penalty on conviction on indictment is five years, which is significantly less than the penalty available for the common-law offence. Is the signal that the Government seek to send that this is, somehow or other, a much less important species of attempting to pervert the course of justice?
  Mr. Spellar: No it is not. We have specifically written the provision into the Bill to make clear our disapproval of such behaviour. Rather than it just being a common-law offence, it will become an explicit statutory offence. That is why we are putting it in the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman said that some matters that are not in the Bill could be in it. That point has been made by several hon. Members. If there is a broad sense that the feeling of the House is that we should look at the consultative procedures that we undertake with regard to some of the provisions in the Bill in order to compress their time scales, hon. Members should perhaps say that and put that as a proposition. I become frustrated and share the concerns of the electorate at the time that we take, but I recognise that we need to engage with those who want to make representations and to express their views when we examine proposals. I therefore ask colleagues to reflect on whether we need to compress the time scales so that we can deal with pressing problems on the ground in a shorter time.
  I do not take away our responsibility for dealing with matters administratively in a short time or for trying to do work in parallel when that is possible. However, some of the approach is simply set down by the procedures for consultation—not particularly in this case, but in others—because we are operating direct rule on matters that were previously devolved. We need to reflect on the broader issues involved and accept that the matter is not as simple and straightforward as some colleagues suggest.
  I come now to the early clauses on the judicial appointments commission. Originally, the commission was laid down in previous legislation to come into effect when devolution of justice took place. Therefore, the principle of a judicial appointments commission has
  1614
  already been established by the House and enshrined in statute. We are now in the position in which those powers are being moved to the Lord Chancellor until devolution of justice takes place. I do not see a great issue of principle with having a judicial appointments commission to put views to the Lord Chancellor as opposed to one that makes recommendations to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It is perfectly creditable for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to take the position, "I previously thought one thing about it, but now I have a different view." However, I do not see a great issue of principle between having the commission as originally envisaged in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 or as it is proposed in the Bill.
  As we have said several times, we are putting forward a Bill providing for a justice appointments commission in England and Wales. Indeed, there is already a Judicial Appointments Board in Scotland, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said. It was established in 2002, and it seems to be working reasonably well. I accept the questions that have been raised about the board, and I will obviously have further discussions with Scottish representatives on that matter so that we can deal with the issue in Committee. Again, it appears that the issue has been dealt with adequately in Scotland without creating a great deal of difficulty.
  The question has been asked whether the commission will affect impartiality, but does that imply that the Northern Ireland judiciary is not already impartial? We do not agree with that because we believe that the Northern Ireland judiciary should be commended on its professionalism and impartiality, as has been said several times. That is why the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 refers specifically to the continued independence of the judiciary. The criminal justice review, which the Bill builds on, is about appointments the system of appointments in line with the changing needs of society. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) rightly said, that was highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Lords.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister says that the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland is currently impartial and working well. If that is the case, why do we need the Bill and a whole new appointments commission with all the difficulties and downsides that that entails?
  Mr. Spellar: We already have provision for a judicial appointments commission. That was agreed when we considered the 2002 Act.
  Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because I have been trying to contain myself for quite a while. He is bound to know that the criminal justice review team that the Government put in place recommended that there should be a judicial appointments commission, but only after devolution, which was the whole purpose of the report. We do not have devolution, so why is he cherry-picking the report?
  Mr. Spellar: That is not really the case because we have already agreed provisions on a judicial appointments commission that could make recommendations to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. We will now have a commission that will

  1615
  improve transparency and confidence in the system and make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor. The principle has already been agreed, so we are currently considering the time scale.
  I shall move on quickly to the Conservative amendment. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that he was perplexed by it, but he should not be. He asked several questions about it, but the answers are straightforward. The two members of the Conservative Northern Ireland Front-Bench team are decent and sensible individuals who take a considerable interest in Northern Ireland—they are a considerable improvement on their predecessors. However, the amendment was tabled for a straightforward reason, which was partly to do with events on Monday and also because of the style of the Conservative Opposition. The hon. Gentlemen were instructed by the Tory politburo to move such an amendment and take its approach.
  The Conservative approach is fundamentally wrong for two reasons. First, it moves away from the bipartisan approach that parties have taken on Northern Ireland, which is regrettable. Secondly, it represents lousy opposition. Conservative Members quote the mantra of Churchill that the duty of Oppositions is to oppose, but we know from 18 years' experience that that is a good way of staying in opposition because credibility is lost among serious people. I congratulate the two hon. Gentlemen on making the best of a bad job with some pretty thin arguments, but there are serious issues to discuss, which we will address in Committee. We need to ensure that people know that we understand the problems and difficulties and that we have a way of moving ahead to improve conditions for people in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I suggest that those of us in England and Wales could then learn lessons from Northern Ireland, rather than only taking lessons learned to Northern Ireland from England and Wales. I hope that the Committee will provide a better opportunity to consider such issues and look forward to seeing hon. Members who participated in the debate when we consider the Bill there.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 366.

  Division No.83

  [6:59pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Burt, Alistair

  Amess, David

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Cameron, David

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Cash, William

  Bacon, Richard

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Barnet)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Chope, Christopher

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clappison, James

  Bercow, John

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Boswell, Tim

  Collins, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Surrey)

  Curry, rh David

  Brady, Graham

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Brazier, Julian

  Stamford)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Burns, Simon

  Howden)

  Burnside, David

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  1616

  Dodds, Nigel

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Norman, Archie

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Evans, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Pa ice, James

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Paterson, Owen

  Westminster)

  Pickles, Eric

  Flook, Adrian

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Forth, rh Eric

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Randall, John

  Francois, Mark

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Garnier, Edward

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Goodman, Paul

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Ruffley, David

  Greenway, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Grieve, Dominic

  Selous, Andrew

  Gummer, rh John

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Hammond, Philip

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Heald, Oliver

  Soames, Nicholas

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hendry, Charles

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hermon, Lady

  Spring, Richard

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Howard, rh Michael

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Syms, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jack, rh Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Tredinnick, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Trend, Michael

  Lait Mrs Jacqui

  Trimble, rh David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Walter, Robert

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Watkinson, Angela

  Loughton, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Mcintosh, Miss Anne

  Wiggin, Bill

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Maclean, rh David

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Malins, Humfrey

  (Macclesfield)

  Maples, John

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Young, rh Sir George

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Tellers for the Ayes: Hugh Robertson and Mr. Peter Atkinson

  Coldfield)

  Moss, Malcolm

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Battle, John

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainger, Nick

  Beard, Nigel

  Alexander, Douglas

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Allan, Richard

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Allen, Graham

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bennett, Andrew

  Austin, John

  Benton, Joe (Booth)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Berry, Roger

  Baker, Norman

  Best, Harold

  Banks, Tony

  Betts, Clive

  Barnes, Harry

  Blackman, Liz

  Barrett, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Blizzard, Bob

  1617

  Boatengerh Paul

  Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Breed, Colin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Brennan, Kevin

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Wallsend)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Browne, Desmond

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Bryant, Chris

  Follett, Barbara

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burnett, John

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Burnham, Andy

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Burstow, Paul

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Cabom, rh Richard

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Cairns, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Fife)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Grogan, John

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hain, rh Peter

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Challen, Colin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirra/S)

  Hanson, David

  Chaytor, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clapham, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Rhymney)

  Pent/ands)

  Healey, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heath, David

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Hendrick, Mark

  Chryston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Heyes, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Holmes, Paul

  Colman, Tony

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corston, Jean

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Cotter, Brian

  Sefton E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Urmston)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hutton, rh John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Darling, rh Alistair

  lllsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  David, Wayne

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Davidson, Ian

  Highgate)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jamieson, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jenkins, Brian

  Denham, rh John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Donohoe, Brian H,

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Doughty, Sue

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  1618

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Kidney, David

  Olner, Bill

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  O'Neill, Martin

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Õpik, Lembit

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Gien &

  Organ, Diana

  Bow)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Perham, Linda

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Picking, Anne

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Pickthall, Colin

  Lamb, Norman

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Lammy, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Lepper, David

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Dinefwr)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Linton, Martin

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Love, Andrew

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  McDonnell, John

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  MacDougall, John

  Bel/shill)

  McFall, John

  Rendel, David

  McGrady, Eddie

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Annies/and)

  McKechin, Ann

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  McKenna, Rosemary

  NW)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McNamara, Kevin

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McNulty, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  MacShane, Denis

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  McWalter, Tony

  Chester)

  McWilliam, John

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Salmond, Alex

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Salter, Martin

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mallon, Seamus

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Sawford, Phil

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Sheerman, Barry

  Atcham)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Short, rh Clare

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

  Martlew, Eric

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Singh, Marsha

  Merron, Gillian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michael, rh Alun

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Miliband, David

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Miller, Andrew

  Finsbury)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsb)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Moffatt, Laura

  Lunesdale)

  Mole, Chris

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moore, Michael

  Smith, Llew (B/aenau Gwent)

  Moran, Margaret

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

  Morgan, Julie

  Kincardine)

  Morley, Elliot

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Spellar, rh John

  Mudie, George

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Murphy, rh Paul (Toriaen)

  Lochaber)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  1619

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Watson. Tom(W Bromwich E)

  Stringer, Graham

  Watts, David

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Webb, Steve(Northavon)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Weir, Michael

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  White, Brian

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Teather, Sarah

  Willis, I'hil

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wills, Michael

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Wilson, Brian

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Winnick., David

  Thurso, John

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Timms, Stephen

  C)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wishart Pete

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Woolas, Phil

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Worthington, Tony

  Trickett, Jon

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Truswell, Paul

  Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Kemptown)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Fraser Kemp and Ms Bridget Prentice

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading): —
  The House divided: Ayes 358, Noes 141.

  Division No. 84]

  [7:14pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brennan, Kevin

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Brooke Mrs Annette L.

  Ainger, Nick

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Alexander, Douglas

  Wallsend)

  Allan, Richard

  Browne, Desmond

  Allen, Graham

  Bryant, Chris

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Burgon Colin

  Austin, John

  Burnett John

  Bailey, Adrian

  Burnham, Andy

  Baker, Norman

  Burstow, Paul

  Banks, Tony

  Caborn rh Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Cairns, David

  Barrett, John

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Beard, Nigel

  Fife)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Caplin,Ivor

  Bennett, Andrew

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Casale, Roger

  Berry, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Best, Harold

  Challen Colin

  Betts, Clive

  Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

  Blackman, Liz

  Chaytor, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clapharn, Michael

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Pentlands)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Breed, Colin

  Chryston)

  1620

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heyes, David

  Clelland, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Holmes, Paul

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Colman, Tony

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Corston, Jean

  Sefton E)

  Cotter, Brian

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Cruddas, Jon

  Urmston)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hutton, rh John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  lllsley, Eric

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  David, Wayne

  Jamieson, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Denham, rh John

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Doran, Frank

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Doughty, Sue

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

  Kidney, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Bow)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Fisher, Mark

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lamb, Norman

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lammy, David

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Follett, Barbara

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Gidley, Sandra

  Linton, Martin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Godsiff, Roger

  Love, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Grogan, John

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hain, rh Peter

  McDonnell, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  MacDougall, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McFall, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Hanson, David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Harvey, Nick

  McKechin, Ann

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Rhymney)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Healey, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Heath, David

  McNulty, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McWalter, Tony

  Heppell, John

  McWilliam, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mahmood, Khalid

  1621

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mallon, Seamus

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Sawford, Phil

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Sheridan, Jim

  Atcham)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Singh, Marsha

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Michael, rh Alun

  Finsbury)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Lunesdale)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mole, Chris

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moore, Michael

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns &

  Moran, Margaret

  Kincardine)

  Morgan, Julie

  Soley, Clive

  Morley, Elliot

  Spellar, rh John

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mudie, George

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Lochaber)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Olner, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Organ, Diana

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Perham, Linda

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Picking, Anne

  Teather, Sarah

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thurso, John

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Timms, Stephen

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Dinefwr)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Trickett, Jon

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Truswell, Paul

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kemptown)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Bellshill)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Rendel, David

  Watts, David

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Weir, Michael

  Anniesland)

  White, Brian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  NW)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Willis, Phil

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Wills, Michael

  Chester)

  Wilson, Brian

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Winnick, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Salter, Martin

  C)

  1622

  Wishart, Pete

  Wyatt, Derek

  Woodward, Shaun

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Woolas, Phil

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Yarmouth)

  Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Fraser Kemp and Ms Bridget Prentice

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hermon, Lady

  Amess, David

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bacon, Richard

  Jack, rh Michael

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Bercow, John

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Boswell, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Leigh, Edward

  Surrey)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Brady, Graham

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Brazier, Julian

  Lidington, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Loughton, Tim

  Burns, Simon

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Burnside, David

  Mcintosh, Miss Anne

  Burt, Alistair

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Maclean, rh David

  Cameron, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Maples, John

  Barnet)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Chope, Christopher

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clappison, James

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Coldfield)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Moss, Malcolm

  Collins, Tim

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Norman, Archie

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Curry, rh David

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Ottaway, Richard

  Stamford)

  Page, Richard

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Paice, James

  Howden)

  Paterson, Owen

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Pickles, Eric

  Dodds, Nigel

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Randall, John

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Fabricant, Michael

  M-Kent)

  Fallon, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Westminster)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Flook, Adrian

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Forth, rh Eric

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Selous, Andrew

  Francois, Mark

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gamier, Edward

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Soames, Nicholas

  Goodman, Paul

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spring, Richard

  Gummer, rh John

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Hammond, Philip

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hawkins, Nick

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Syms, Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hendry, Charles

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  1623

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Wiggin, Bill

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Trend, Michael

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Trimble, rh David

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  (Macclesfield)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Young, rh Sir George

  Walter, Robert

  Watkinson, Angela

  Tellers for the Noes: Mrs. Iris Robinson and Mr. Andrew Hunter

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

  JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]:
  Committal
  1.The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  Proceedings in Standing Committee
  2.Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 1st April 2004.
  3.The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
  Consideration and Third leading
  4.Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
  5.Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
  6.Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
  Other proceedings
  7.Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) may be programmed. —[Charlotte Atkins.]
  The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 129.

  Division No.85]

  [7:27pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Berry, Roger

  Ainger, Nick

  Best, Harold

  Alexander, Douglas

  Betts, Clive

  Allan, Richard

  Blackman, Liz

  Allen, Graham

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blizzard, Bob

  Austin, John

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Bailey, Adrian

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Baker, Norman

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Banks, Tony

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Barnes, Harry

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Barrett, John

  Breed, Colin

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Brennan Kevin

  Battle, John

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Beard, Nigel

  Wallsend)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Browne, Desmond

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Bryant, Chris

  1624

  Burnham, Andy

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Burstow, Paul

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cabom, rh Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cairns, David

  Grogan, John

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Hain, rh Peter

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Fife)

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Harvey, Nick

  Casale, Roger

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Caton, Martin

  Rhymney)

  Challen, Colin

  Healey, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Heath, David

  Chaytor, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Heppell, John

  Pentlands)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heyes, David

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Holmes, Paul

  Chryston)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Clelland, David

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Colman, Tony

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Urmston)

  Cotter, Brian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hutton, rh John

  Cruddas, Jon

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  lllsley, Eric

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jamieson, David

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  David, Wayne

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Denham, rh John

  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

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Doughty, Sue

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Kidney, David

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Edwards, Huw

  Bow)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lamb, Norman

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lammy, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lepper, David

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Follett, Barbara

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Love, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Gidley, Sandra

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gilroy, Linda

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Goggins, Paul

  MacDonald, Calum

  1625

  McDonnell, John

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  MacDougall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McFall, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Chester)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McKechin, Ann

  Salmond, Alex

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Salter, Martin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacShane, Denis

  Sawford, Phil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Short, rh Clare

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Singh, Marsha

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Lunesdale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michael, rh Alun

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

  Miller, Andrew

  Kincardine)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Soley, Clive

  Moffatt, Laura

  Spellar, rh John

  Mole, Chris

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Moore, Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moran, Margaret

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Morgan, Julie

  Lochaber)

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Stunell, Andrew

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Organ, Diana

  Teather, Sarah

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Perham, Linda

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Picking, Anne

  Thurso, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Timms, Stephen

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Plaskitt, James

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Trickett, Jon

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Truswell, Paul

  Dinefwr)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Kemptown)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Watts, David

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Weir, Michael

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  White, Brian

  Bellshill)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Rendel, David

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Anniesland)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Willis, Phil

  NW)

  Wills, Michael

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winnick, David

  1626

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  C)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Woodward, Shaun

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Yarmouth)

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Ms Bridget Prentice

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Amess, David

  Jack, rh Michael

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Bacon, Richard

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bellingham, Henry

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bercow, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Boswell, Tim

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lidington, David

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Loughton, Tim

  Surrey)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Brady, Graham

  Mcintosh, Miss Anne

  Brazier, Julian

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Burns, Simon

  Malins, Humfrey

  Burnside, David

  Maples, John

  Burt, Alistair

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Coldfield)

  Barnet)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Chope, Christopher

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Norman, Archie

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Collins, Tim

  Page, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Paice, James

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Paterson, Owen

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Pickles, Eric

  Stamford)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Randall, John

  Howden)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Evans, Nigel

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fallon, Michael

  Selous, Andrew

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Westminster)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Flook, Adrian

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Francois, Mark

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Spring, Richard

  Gamier, Edward

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Syms, Robert

  Goodman, Paul

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Gummer, rh John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hammond, Philip

  Tredinnick, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Trend, Michael

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Trimble, rh David

  Heald, Oliver

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hendry, Charles

  Walter, Robert

  Hermon, Lady

  Watkinson, Angela

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Whittingdale, John

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Wiggin, Bill

  1627

  Wilkinson, John

  Young, rh Sir George

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  (Macclesfield)

  Hugh Robertson and

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Mr. Hugo Swire

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [LORDS/ [MON EY]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a)any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act, and

  (b)any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

  Question agreed to.

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEES
  Motion made,
  That the Standing Orders be amended as follows:—

  (1) In Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business), line 18, leave out from 'committees' to 'which' in line 20 and insert 'to which that paragraph applies'.

  In Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees), line 10, leave out from 'under' to `, or' in line 13 and insert 'the Standing Orders of this House (with the exception of the Liaison Committee, the Committee of Selection, the Committee on Standards and Privileges and any Committee established under a temporary Standing Order).—[Charlotte Atkins.]

  Hon. Members: Object.
  Andrew Selous: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to seek your guidance on what is acceptable parliamentary language when referring to another Member. Earlier today, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) was referred to in a manner that many people would consider gratuitously nasty. That demeans the reputation of this House, is not appreciated by our constituents and does not contribute to debate. What reassurance can you give us that you will not tolerate such language in future?
  Mr. Speaker:I do my best to ensure temperate language in the House at all times. Obviously, I need the co-operation of every hon. Member, and such cooperation is not always the case. But I shall look at the record and write to the hon. Gentleman to see what we can do.
  Lembit Öpik: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully understand the level of stress that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must feel as he observes from directly across the Floor Liberal Democrats in ever-increasing numbers. May I suggest through you that, for the sake of his health and everyone's safety, he be asked to sit somewhere else?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner:Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was sitting in this corner seat when the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Õpik) had got nappies on. I am still here and I shall be here when he has gone—done and dusted.
  Now then, I am very interested in this wonderful Tory-Liberal pact. I have been waiting years for it and now it has burst out. What a funny crowd they are. Get to bed. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Speaker: I sat next to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in that corner, and I thoroughly enjoyed every moment of remarks that were never put on the record—thanks be to God. [Laughter.] All that I can say to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) is that I have never seen the hon. Member for Bolsover being stressed at any time.
  Bob RussellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on, and protection from, impersonation of Members of this House? It has been drawn to my attention that in the Strangers' Cafeteria book, it has been alleged that "Bob Russell" made derogatory comments about Fair Trade chocolate and urged Members to eat Mars bars instead. [Laughter.]
  Normally, such a bit of jesting would be all right, but I believe that there was malicious intent. The information was conveyed to the London Evening Standard, which regrettably did not check the story. It has attributed to me comments that I take seriously. I support the Fair Trade industry and any suggestion that I do not is derogatory to me. I therefore seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has explained his concerns to the House. It is, of course, not a point that the Chair can rule on. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman contact the director of catering services and the Chairman of the Catering Committee to ask them to investigate this very serious matter.

PETITION

  Health (Excessive Alcohol Consumption)
  7.45 pm
  Ms Julia Drown:I wish to present a petition from the members of the gastroenterology department at the Great Western hospital, Swindon, who are deeply concerned about the damage to people's lives caused by excessive alcohol consumption. They are joined by more than 500 specialists from across the country who share that concern.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons.
  The Petition of Dr. M.D. Hellier MD MA FRCP, Consultant Physician/Gastroenterologist at Great Western Hospital, Swindon, and others,
  Declares that much damage to health is caused by the excessive consumption of alcohol,

  1629
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to include in its National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy the following warning:
  'HM Government Health Warning. This product contains (relative number of units of alcohol) consumption of more than 21 units/week for men and 14 units/week for women can damage your health.'
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Manchester College of Arts and Technology
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn. —[Charlotte Atkins.]
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Graham Stringer:I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the Manchester College of Arts and Technology. Before I do so I should like to declare what I think is an interest. I am not sure that it is, but it is better to have it on the record that the Fees Office pays for an office that I use within MANCAT. That has enabled me to witness first-hand a wonderful story of institutional success and improvement at the Manchester College of Arts and Technology, alongside the individual success of many students.
  To understand the background to that success one has to understand both the position that MANCAT was in 1997 and the levels of educational attainment and poverty in north Manchester, where my constituency is. In 1997, MANCAT's budget was in deficit. It did not have a good reputation for partnership working. In fact, it did very little of it. The educational achievement of young people in north Manchester was such that approximately 25 per cent were staying on into post-16 education and only about 20 per cent were staying on into post-18 education.
  In the 1991 census one of the wards was one of the very few in the whole country, if not the only one, where there was not a single person with a second degree living in it. Many wards in the constituency come within the top 100 most impoverished wards in the country.
  Since 2000 MANCAT has had an unqualified audit. It has increased by 150 per cent. over the last four years the number of 16- to 18-year-olds in education. I do not have the figures for 1997. but I guess that the increase is more than 150 per cent. over that six or seven-year period. And from that average 25 per cent. staying on in post-16 education on a ward by ward basis in Manchester, Blackley, the lowest percentage now is 62 per cent. and the highest is 72 per cent., which is almost a threefold increase and compares to national averages. The national average is 67 per cent. across all constituencies. For urban areas, it is 63 per cent. It is an extraordinary achievement—and it is not just educational achievement. The Government's priorities are for regeneration and joined-up government, but we know that it is not possible to have regeneration without educational achievement alongside it.
  The college is now working on educational schemes in partnership and is sponsored by Jaguar and a local company that does coatings in the motor industry, called H. Marcel Guest. It also works in partnership with the health authority, the city council and schools and it has been involved in an investment programme of £35 million, leading to new sixth-form colleges in St. Matthew's in my constituency and the North Manchester high school for girls. It is hoped that another sixth-form college will be located on the old Harpurhey Baths site at the corner of Moston lane and Rochdale road.
  I am talking about my own constituency, but similar achievements apply in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Central (Tony

  1631
  Lloyd) and for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins). As I said, it is a remarkable achievement, and it is a tribute to all the staff of the college from top to bottom, and to the leadership of the college principal, Peter Tavernor. What explains such an extraordinary achievement? It has gone from being a college with one of the lowest success rates to one of the highest in the country.
  Clearly, it has not been achieved through standard methods. For a start, the college has employed youth workers, guidance workers, social workers and care workers, alongside the usual qualified lecturers that one finds in a college of education. All those people have been working on flexible contracts. They have had to work with some of the most difficult young people, in the sense that their educational achievement at school has not been good. Either the education system has failed them or they have failed within the education system—whichever way one likes to look at it. About 50 per cent. of the people entering the college in that age group are from ethnic minorities, and English is the second language for many of them. About 20 per cent. of extra people attending have been offenders, and social workers believe that they could offend again.
  Flexible working was necessary. Obviously, we could not expect many of the students who do not read and write in English—literacy levels are poor—to sit in front of a lecturer and be lectured at in the traditional sixth-form way. What it boils down to is adopting many innovative ways of proceeding. Sometimes the support and youth workers have had to knock on doors to get people to attend the college. Those forms of support have led to a 71 per cent. success rate in terms of getting those people into college. It is an extraordinarily good story, and it has not been achieved in the traditional way.
  There have been real difficulties, however, with the audit process—the main purpose of the debate. To avoid any misunderstanding, I should like to make it clear that I believe, along with virtually every hon. Member in the House, that whenever public money is spent, it should be audited. There is no question about that. When I spoke to Liz Davis, the chief executive of the local learning and skills council, which is responsible for the audit, she told me that there is no question that any money has gone missing.
  However, because of the innovative working arrangements—involving youth workers, and perhaps people who might put a cross down on a piece of paper because they do not have a signature, English not being their first language—there has been a real problem with the audit.
  It is true that public money should be looked after, and we should know how it is spent, but it is now the view of senior management at the college that the audit is being carried out in a racist way. That is not to say that any individual member of the learning and skills council is racist; the process is at fault. That view is shared not only by the leadership of the college but by the deputy leader of Manchester city council, Martin Pagel.
  It is obvious that if we are dealing with young people at the extreme end of the spectrum of difficulty in getting them into colleges, and 50 per cent. of them are from ethnic minorities, many of those coming in from
  1632
  elsewhere, there will be those difficulties. Any auditors should be responsive to those immediate difficulties, such as people not being able to write English, and not being in the classroom or the lecture hall. It is the view of the principals that the auditors do not understand that.
  The process has also been extremely expensive for the college. The principals say that it costs them, in that successful and innovative area, hundreds of times more in staff time to talk to the auditors than it does in traditional colleges. They also say that one third of a million pounds has been taken out of MANCAT's budget because of its innovative approach. If lecturers in traditional lecture theatres and classrooms had been doing the teaching, the money would have been paid, but because the activities are non-traditional, the college has been penalised by that sum.
  I wrote to Liz Davis, the chief executive of the learning and skills council, and I was disappointed by her response. It would not be out of context to quote from her letter, but I do not have time to read out more than one sentence:
  "We do however also need to ensure that the policy is developed properly and in consultation with others to ensure consistency and accountability for public funds is maintained, and not in response to the demands of individual providers."
  I find that extraordinary. We have a successful provider, and the people who are financing it and checking it are saying, "You're very successful, but you aren't doing it in the right way, so we won't fund you."
  Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons:I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate so important to colleges that serve both our constituencies, which adjoin each other in northern Manchester. As I understand it, the issue is the flexibility of the audit of the additional learning support grant. Does my hon. Friend agree that many colleges have come up against the problems of the tight restrictive audit mechanisms? I offer support from my local college, Hopwood Hall, but does my hon. Friend also agree that in the relaxing of the audit mechanism, none of the other colleges that serve his constituency, such as Hopwood Hall, should be discouraged in any way from adopting measures as flexible and engaging as those that MANCAT has used?
  Mr. Stringer:I am talking primarily about MANCAT, and I am trying to ensure that the rules set down and implemented for mainstream provision do not further disadvantage those young people who need education. I do not know about Hopwood Hall, but it certainly would not be my intention for there to be any negative impact on it. When I have been informed about what is happening in other colleges, very little of MANCAT's sort of work, using youth workers and other such people, as opposed to lecturers, seems to be going on elsewhere, so I cannot imagine that what I suggest would have many implications for other colleges.
  The deputy leader of Manchester city council, who is also a governor of MANCAT, said in a letter to me that he thought that the way in which the audit was being carried out broke the anti-discrimination laws on disability. I think that that should be investigated.

  1633
  This debate is about MANCAT, but the young people who need education are our most important priority. In that connection, I want to mention two matters. The first has to do with the co-financing by the European social fund. In a report that is available to the public, Manchester city council has described how the local learning and skills council sought ESF bids without making any forward planning. No partnership work was undertaken, there was no guidance for bidding, and the process was not transparent.
  The result was a huge overbid, after which £800,000 was taken away from the youth college that deals with those young people aged between 14 and 18 who are likely to be excluded from school—exactly the category of young people for whom MANCAT is doing so well. In addition, £2 million was taken away from the fund for lifelong learning libraries. That is unfortunate, as those libraries help the same group of people.
  Secondly, I happened to receive a letter today from Carolyn Caldwell, the executive director of Connexions. She complained that mistakes in value-added tax meant that money would be taken away from the Manchester Connexions service, which helps people in the same 16 to 19-year-old age group to find jobs or get into education.
  MANCAT has been doing an extraordinarily good job, but there have been three separate attacks on its funding. One attack was made directly on the college, the second came through ESF funding organised by the learning and skills council, and the third came through Connexions.
  That cannot be right. MANCAT has done so well because the Government have given it money, while for its part the college has followed the Government's priorities. Because the quango involved does not appear able to work in partnership with the city council or the college, the objectives of using joined-up government to facilitate regeneration and give a second—and possibly final—chance to young people who missed their first chance at education have been damaged.
  The problem has been caused by a perversity in the audit process. Although we need to know where public money is going, it cannot be a sensible policy to spend so much extra time on what is a very difficult area. Staff are angry, and money has been withdrawn: that is certainly not an example of working in partnership.
  I am not a quango basher, by any means. Sometimes, quangos can focus and direct their efforts better than organisations with wider remits and more policy priorities. However, where a quango fails, the Government must look at what is going on. I hope that they resist the temptation of saying, "This quango isn't doing so well. It has lost the support of some of its partners, so we'd better move its responsibilities up to the regional level."
  That would be a huge mistake. The success that has been achieved at local level stems from the work done by people who understand their local communities. It is immediately clear that the take up of education by young people has increased in those sixth form centres in which MANCAT has invested. I have seen that happen in the building in Moston where I work.
  1634
  I want to take this opportunity of thanking the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) who has discussed this matter with me previously. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, who will respond to this debate, will be able to say that the problem that I have set out will be investigated, with a view to restoring the third of a million pounds that has been taken away. I hope that he recognises the enormous success achieved by MANCAT, and that he will do all that he can to prevent that success being dimmed.
  8.4 pm
  The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson):I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) on securing the debate.
  Before I discuss MANCAT, it is worth saying that the funding methodology for further education colleges is clearly set out in the Learning and Skills Council's annual funding guidance, which prescribes not only what the LSC can and will fund but also provides the terms and conditions for that funding. The LSC monitors compliance with its funding rules through an annual reconciliation and audit arrangement, and that compliance work is contracted out to specialist audit firms.
  Although we are keen for colleges to be innovative and we would not want to stifle innovation, any such provision has to take place within the rules. It is a sad fact nationally that the major failures in the sector have been in aspects of innovative provision. We thus need to balance the desire for new and imaginative ways of working with the need for proper accountability and the necessary compliance activity. My hon. Friend fairly said that such work was essential and did not form part of his argument.
  It is important to note that MANCAT is the highest funded college for 16 to 18-year-old full-time equivalent students in the LSC Greater Manchester area, and by some distance the highest funded general FE college. That is primarily because it receives substantial amounts of both disadvantage and additional learner support funding, which reflects the deprivation of the college's catchment area and the individual difficulties of each student, to which my hon. Friend referred.
  In fact, the college has received an allocation of £27.8 million for 2003–04, which represents a 25 per cent. increase on the previous year, and includes £2.3 million disadvantage funding arid £3.4 million to meet learners' additional support requirements. Together, those two strands represent 12.2 per cent. of the college's total funding, which compares favourably with a national average for general further education colleges of between 9 and 10 per cent.
  I know that the LSC recognises the fact that MANCAT is doing a good job—I shall say more about that in a second—especially to engage learners who otherwise would probably not be in education. Since 2000, the council has backed that up by investing substantial additional growth funding in the college to enable rapid expansion of 16-to-18 participation and of English for speakers of other languages.

  1635
  Recent events related to the 2002–03 funding claim have caused difficulties in finalising the subsequent audit. In fact, over the past two years, MANCAT has challenged the LSC over its annual funding audit whenever the compliance of the college's ESOL, open college network and additional learner support provision has been scrutinised in any detail. It is clear that the LSC and the college have differences of opinion with regard to the approach to audit. As my hon. Friend said, the college thinks that the scrutiny requirements for that type of funding are excessive, while the LSC believes that the record keeping and evidence provided by the college could be better.
  For the sake of clarity, I shall briefly set out the background to the situation and explain how we need to work to resolve the matter. First, the college sought funding for a range of broader innovative learning support activities which, in the college's view, incurred additional costs linked to the nature of the disadvantaged cohort. The costs included those for the college's team of youth support workers, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Those workers provide an important wider support package for young learners at risk of dropping out of education. The auditors and the LSC looked closely at that aspect of provision and concluded from the evidence available that, although those activities were effective, much of the claim fell within the scope of the disadvantage funding that the college had already received as part of its core allocation. The auditors also found that some of the open college network provision was complex and poorly recorded, which made assessing the evidence, and thus validating the funding claim, almost impossible.
  The crux of the issue, therefore, is not that the wider support activities offered by the college do not provide educational value, but that claims for funding were insufficiently evidenced, and without such evidence it is not possible for the auditors to give an assurance that the activities in question are legitimate. The LSC has been working closely with the college to resolve that, and there has been significant progress in recent months.
  In December 2004, the LSC recognised that the auditors are not educational experts, so it sought advice from someone who definitely is an expert, Dr. Terry Melia, who is a respected former chief inspector. Dr. Melia concluded that, although there were weaknesses in the recording of the additional learner support activities, the activities themselves represented support as funded by the LSC. The findings also indicated a well-motivated student body that is gaining a great deal from the MANCAT experience. In the light of his findings, the LSC agreed to meet a substantial element of the college's additional learner support claim in full, but it asked that the college seek to improve its record keeping in the future. That shows the LSC's willingness to respond positively to the college's efforts. The outcome is considerably more positive for the college than would have been the case if the standard audit approach had been applied rigidly, without considering the outcomes achieved.
  It should be noted that the local LSC works well with MANCAT on many other issues—for example, the 14-to-19 strategy and action plan, following the area
  1636
  inspection of Manchester. The LSC also recognises that the college's strategy of developing its accommodation across the city has made a major contribution to increased 16-to-18 participation in Greater Manchester. The LSC has provided substantial financial support to the college in helping it to implement its accommodation strategy. For example, it has contributed £8.37 million towards eight separate capital projects at a total cost of £22.5 million—easily the highest contribution committed to a college in Greater Manchester.
  In addition, the LSC has recently approved financial support of about £2.5 million for MANCAT's proposal to create a new sixth-form centre. The LSC has also written to the Northwest Development Agency to assist the college in securing further contributions towards the project costs. The college is clearly in a strong position, both financially and with regard to the quality of its provision.
  I endorse my hon. Friend's comments about what a good college MANCAT is. At its last inspection in April 2002, the college's ESOL provision was graded as outstanding, along with many other good curriculum grades. Leadership and management were also found to be good, and the college's response to educational and social exclusion was deemed to be outstanding. MANCAT is an excellent college.
  The latest three-year financial forecasts, from 2003 to 2006, confirm that MANCAT should continue to be in the highest financial health category for the next three years. The college has also succeeded in developing some effective partnership arrangements, with good links to schools in the area and to higher education, and employer links with the automotive sector.
  My hon. Friend was absolutely right when he said that there was controversy about the failure to achieve European social fund money. I am assured that that has nothing to do with the quality of the bid but rather with the quality of the competition. I also think that it is fair to say that the way that the process was handled, with 400 applications getting through to the final stage, was not a good one. That is accepted by everyone involved, and they need to learn from the mistakes.
  I congratulate the college on its successes. I hope that it will continue to work constructively with the LSC and other partners to develop further its contribution to education and learning in the Manchester area.
  On my hon. Friend's specific point about institutional racism, he has had a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), the Under-Secretary responsible for skills and vocational education, who is investigating his concerns and will respond in the very near future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley and other hon. Friends have raised an important issue that is of concern to the community that they represent. I hope that, in this short debate, I have managed to give an assurance that we intend to resolve the problems by working together to continue the excellent provision of further education provided by MANCAT in my hon. Friend's constituency.
  Question put and agreed to
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Eight o'clock.

Russia (Human Rights)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting he now adjourned. —[Mr. Heppell]
9.30 am
Malcolm Bruce: Although the attendance in the Chamber this morning may suggest that this is not an important subject, I would argue that this is a crucial debate about the direction that Russia is taking, and about the fitness of Russia to be part of the democratic community. Consequently, it has serious implications for developing relations between our country and Russia. I should perhaps make it clear that I am a member of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly, and a member of its Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee. I am the rapporteur on political prisoners, specifically in Azerbaijan, which is obviously out side the scope of the debate, but also in Europe.
For the past two years, members of the Parliamentary Assembly have been extremely concerned about what has been happening in President Putin's Russia. The core of attention until recently was events in Chechnya. The Assembly of the Council of Europe suspended the voting rights of the Russian delegation because it was so appalled at the lack of action by the Russian authorities to deal with blatant and widespread human rights abuses in Chechnya. We are talking about clearly reported events, such as cases where Russian soldiers, or other Russian agents, burst into she cellars of houses where women and children—innocent people—were sheltering from civil war, and tossed in hand grenades and killed them. No action has been taken against those authorities.
I regret to say that the British Prime Minister entertained President Putin on an official visit to this country a week after the Parliamentary Assembly suspended the voting rights of the Russian delegation. It is true that the Prime Minister remonstrated with President Putin on a somewhat famous occasion, only to be lectured by Mr. Putin on the situation in Chechnya. Our Prime Minister could have been more robust in retorting that it was the duty of Governments who signed up to the European convention on human rights, and had valid laws of their own, to uphold and enforce those obligations. That is what we were asking the Russian authorities to do.
Concerned as I remain about the situation in Chechnya and the lack of redress, the debate has moved into what I would call mainstream Russian life. I have received many reports of abuses of human rights by the authorities relating to a number of prisoners. I have also heard reports of conditions affecting Russian prisoners, and heard evidence of self-inflicted wounds, hunger strikes, prisoners setting fire to prisons, suicides and people dying in suspicious circumstances in Russian
422WH
prisons. The state of the prisons and the way that prisoners are treated in Russia is open to serious question.
I want to spend most of my speech on the situation that affects the three Yukos executives arrested last year. It is my belief that, whatever they may be accused of, the way that they are being treated is symptomatic of a change of attitude in the legal process in Russia that is simply unacceptable. If left unchallenged, it will basically allow the Russian authorities to believe that, signatories as they may be to the European convention on human rights, no action will be taken against them, or even public criticism aimed at them, for breaches.
The first thing to record is that in July last year two Yukos executives, Platon Lebedev and Alexei Pichugin, were arrested and have been in custody since then. At the time of their arrest it was widely reported that that was a shot across the bows of the president of Yukos, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was well known for his activities in support of human rights organisations, opposition political parties, promoting a pluralist Russia, and trying to encourage more liberal academic institutions through his considerable personal fortune. He has given more than $100 million to various philanthropic funds in Europe.
Regardless of whether one thinks that Mr. Khodorkovsky is a good guy or a bad guy, what I have to say is still legitimate. I am happy to put on the record that having looked in some depth at Mr. Khodorkovsky's record, most people in the west would regard him as an example of how Russia could usefully develop, rather than the reverse. It is true that according to popular opinion in Russia there is either hostility or indifference to the fate of the so-called oligarchs. However, we should not regard that as a justification for not protesting. The sad fact is that Russia has no tradition of democracy, no established tradition of human rights or due process and, perhaps, a cynical population that does not expect it. Indeed, the population may believe that the authorities are entitled to use whatever means they think are necessary to pursue people who they believe are acting against their perception of the national interest.
In the long term, the implications of allowing Russia to proceed in this manner are profound—especially for the people of Russia. If the situation goes unchallenged, Russia could slide back into the bad old mechanisms of the Soviet Union and not move forward into pluralist democracy. Ultimately, that may damage confidence in economic developments in Russia and the willingness to invest. Companies that are looking for Russian partners will inevitably be concerned that if their Russian partner falls foul of the President or central authorities, a case could be fabricated against the western partner and the Russian company in a way that would deeply damage the economic and commercial interests of both. We know that BP has significant investments and partnership arrangements in Russia. Although it is on public record as saying that it is comfortable with that, it is generally known privately that it is much less sanguine about the prospects for future success in that area.
After Mr. Lebedev and Mr. Pichugin were arrested, Mr. Khodorkovsky made it clear that he did not intend to change his behaviour and wished to continue supporting what he would call democratic pluralism, and in particular would give support to three political

423WH
parties: Yabloko, the Union of Rightist Forces and the Communist party. There is a certain irony in the fact that the Communist party is the only effective opposition to President Putin's parties in the Administration in the Russian Duma. When one considers that it is only 14 years since the collapse of communism, that is a rather ironic turn of events, because sadly, the more liberal democratic parties were effectively extinguished at the last election.
In passing it must be recorded that President Putin has systematically closed down critical or opposition media, including television stations and newspapers. The recent elections were severely criticised by many observers not only on evidence that there was perhaps corruption in the conduct of the vote, but much more importantly because there was a total lack of balance in the coverage before the election between the Government and opposition parties. I, for one, admit to feeling a shiver down my spine when, immediately after the election, the leader of the Liberal Democrats—which may be an eponymous party in relation to our own, but which shares absolutely no values with us; it is an extreme, flamboyant, nationalist party—announced that his party was 110 per cent. supportive of the President and would use its votes to give him the two-thirds majority needed to change the constitution in any way he thought fit. That gives a clear indication that democracy and pluralism in Russia are facing the end of their days only a short period after they were born. That is a tragedy for what many of us hoped would be a much brighter future for Russia.
The argument has been advanced that the so-called oligarchs exploited the post-communist situation and made huge amounts of money in corrupt ways. It is true that they made money; they were able to acquire a stake in significant, previously state-owned businesses, which subsequently increased in value, sometimes owing to the activities of the new management and sometimes because they were cheaply held. My contention is that that issue could be addressed without persecuting individuals, imprisoning them and abusing human rights.
In the context of Yukos, Mr. Khodorkovsky has made it clear that he is more than willing to have a dialogue and be constructive. Over the past few years, it has been generally acknowledged by objective observers outside Russia that Yukos was developing a model operation, which was transparent, open and the biggest taxpayer in Russia. Unlike in the United Kingdom, paying taxes in Russia is a club that many people have no intention of joining, but Yukos paid substantial taxes. Its accounts have been transparent, and it has been determined to demonstrate, in ways that would inspire confidence outside Russia, that it is operating according to high standards and is free from corruption.
Let us focus on what has happened to the individuals whom I have mentioned. The reality is that almost all the basic rights to which these people are entitled have been abused. Mr. Lebedev, who was one of Mr. Khodorkovsky's business partners, is in a poor condition in prison. He is losing his eyesight, and is having considerable difficulty in reading the papers associated with his case. At his last hearing when he asked the judge whether he could have a magnifying
424WH
glass, the judge refused to provide him with one and accused him of delaying tactics for not processing what are extremely complicated papers.
It is important to consider the conditions in which these people find themselves. Mr. Lebedev is in poor health, is not coping with his imprisonment and has not been given rights—I shall come to the specific abuse of rights in a moment. Mr. Pichugin has lost a third of his body weight in prison. He is believed to have contracted and developed TB, but it has been difficult to get any sort of medical test. He has also been injected with psychotropic drugs against his will.
I stress that we are talking about Russia in 2004, not Soviet Russia under the communists. This is supposed to be a democratic Russia that is fully signed up to the European convention on human rights. It is not a coincidence, however, that the President's training before he reached that post was as a KGB agent. Over the past year or two, ex-KGB people have been put into key positions throughout Russia and they are known to be using their old mechanisms for enforcing their will.
The men are being held in an ex-KGB prison that has a fairly well established reputation for its previous role during the Soviet era. The essential view is that they have faced a catalogue of abuses. I have met Mr. Khodorkovsky's lawyers, and his lead lawyer is a Canadian citizen, Mr. Robert Amsterdam. He says that he is shocked and appalled by the way that his client is being treated and wit h the process that is being denied. He assures me that it bears close resemblance to what happened during the earlier days of the Soviet Union—not even to its latter, more relaxed, period.
The lead defence attorney acting for Mr. Lebedev and Mr. Khodorkovsky, Anton Drel, has been summoned for questioning by the procurator-general. That is a direct violation of article 8 of the law on rights and duties of lawyers. That is not international law, but Russian law that is being breached. It basically states that an attorney for the defence cannot be either subjected to questioning or summoned to give evidence related to an ongoing case.
On Friday 9 October, law enforcement officials searched offices connected with Yukos and affiliated companies, including the offices of the attorney, Anton Drel. Documents associated with Lebedev and Khodorkovsky's defence were confiscated in a clear violation of attorney -client privilege. It is believed that lawyer-client communications—between lawyers and Mr. Lebedev—are being intercepted at Lefortovo prison.
The men have been denied open court hearings, despite the criminal code giving them that right. They have also been denied the right to effective assistance of counsel. At first hand, I have heard how Mr. Amsterdam has found it difficult to brief, obtain information from or inform his client because hearings are often held in rooms where not even the defence attorneys, never mind anybody else, are allowed in. The defence lawyers say that they have been hampered in many other ways and that they have been unable to fulfil their functions.
Their clients have also been denied bail, despite the fact that the Russian criminal code is quite clear. The argument that has been used in Mr. Khodorkovsky's case, for example, is that in some way he or the others

425WH
would leave the country or interfere with the judicial process—well, they might enable themselves to make an effective defence.
The argument in the case of Mr. Khodorkovsky is questionable. He has had many opportunities to leave Russia, and he has made it clear on every occasion that he has no intention of doing so. He has been out of the country and has returned on many occasions. He has one child at a boarding school in Switzerland, but otherwise all of his family live in Russia and his only home is there. He has made it clear that he has no intention of skipping bail and that he wishes to confront the charges against him and to have a chance to prove his innocence.
As I said earlier, Mr. Pichugin has been injected with psychotropic drugs. His wife has seen the needle marks. He has complained of that treatment, but no action has been taken. There have been numerous raids on the company and the attorney's offices, carried out without proper authority by armed gunmen fishing for anything that might help the court to progress the case.
By any standards, it is clear that the Russian authorities are determined to prosecute the case in any way that they think fit, without any regard for their own legal processes or for their obligations under the European convention on human rights, content in the knowledge that the vast majority of Russian people are not interested or concerned or are even supportive of the actions against these people. Having no real experience of a fair and democratic justice system, people are not particularly surprised that they do not have one now.
That is one of the reasons why this is an important debate. Citizens in free countries such as ours have to protest about the issue and to make it clear that this is not an acceptable way for any country to behave, certainly not one that wants to be, and regards itself as being, accepted into the democratic family of nations.
I do not wish to be too partisan. However, supporters of Mr. Khodorkovsky and of other political prisoners in Russia, and human rights organisations, are disappointed in the extreme that the United Kingdom Government have not taken a public stand to criticise such behaviour, and have not called on the Russian authorities to observe their own rules and those of the European convention on human rights. So I am not the only one to take that view.
The French Government have said that they regard the matter as entirely internal. I do not believe that we can accept that. Whether the charges against these people are legitimate is not the issue, although I have said that I am not convinced that the charges are genuine. The substantive point is that whatever these people are accused of, they should not be treated in this way; they should be entitled to a fair trial and a fair process. What we are getting is the old-style show trial, conducted without proper reference to the proper democratic processes. There have been clear attempts to intimidate others and to break the accused.
I have seen a copy of an open letter to Mr. Khodorkovsky from a former political prisoner of Soviet Russia, who believes that the current pattern of activities is effectively no different from that which existed in Soviet Russia, and that the people carrying out the abuses are the very same as those who did so under the previous regime. The letter tells Mr.
426WH
Khodorkovsky that what he is doing is very brave but very foolish, because he will not succeed. If we do not support the rights of these people, their position will be extremely bleak.
I respectfully suggest that it is the duty of this Parliament and this Government to highlight our concerns and to make it clear to the Russian authorities that this sort of process is unacceptable. We should not interfere with the legal process in relation to the charges, but we should demand that the way in which any prosecutions are carried out should be in accordance with the law of Russia and the international law to which Russia has signed up.
I have received an up-to-date report on how the situation is progressing. The Basmanny court in Moscow decided four days ago to limit the time available to Platon Lebedev to read his case file. The same court refused him a magnifying glass to read his papers. He has to complete his review by the end of March, which gives him little time to prepare a defence. The other two men have been told that their cases have been fully investigated, but new episodes or charges continue to be added to the files. They have all been remanded without bail and no trial dates have been set.
The case has attracted the attention of many former dissidents under the old regime in Russia, including Yelena Bonner, the wife of Mr. Sakharov. She has sent letters to the human rights commissioner in Moscow and has published open letters expressing deep concern about the abuses and calling on the international community to fight for the rights of political prisoners in Russia. I have no doubt that the people to whom I am referring are political prisoners, but that does not ultimately affect the main thrust of my argument. Whatever kind of prisoners they are. they should not be treated in such a way.
I have witnessed the situation in Russia over the past few years with increasing concern, as have many of us. I appreciate the difficulty of turning a former communist totalitarian regime with no history of democracy into a modern pluralist democracy. I never expected Russia suddenly to transform into a relaxed and open democracy, but I hoped and believed that it would move progressively in that direction. The past 12 months have suggested that the opposite is happening; Russia is moving away from democracy towards a form of what one might call democratic totalitarianism.
I do not deny that President Putin was legitimately elected and will probably be re-elected by a substantial margin. Regardless of criticism from observers, the Duma elections probably reflect Russian popular opinion. I could argue that if the more democratic parties had a fairer platform on which to operate and access to freer press and broadcasting services, the balance in the Parliament would be different and there would not have been the effective extinction of liberal and rightist forces in the Duma. However, I do not believe that a full, fair and open platform would have enabled those parties to sweep to power.
I am not naive or out of touch with Russian public opinion, but we must realise that the vast majority of Russians have had no experience of a democratic society and have no recognition of what it is about. A regime, which they may not have loved, collapsed, leading to a period of chaos, which hurt many people. Many people

427WH
suffered, lost work, lost income, were not paid, went hungry, or left the country. Of course, people might say that communism was not great but anarchy is worse.
Nevertheless, if Russia is to have a future and if its signing of the European convention on human rights, of which we are co-guarantors, is to mean anything, it must conduct itself in accordance with the principles of the convention. Through our dealings with Russia, whether they are business or political—Parliament to Parliament or Government to Government—we must make it clear that Russia must unconditionally conform with those basic standards if it is to be accepted into the democratic family of nations.
We need constructive relations with Russia. I understand that Russia is an important political player, and therefore I understand the sense of delicacy and trepidation with which Governments act to maintain relations with Russia. However, the events of the past year have created a slight counter-current because Russia's position on the actions in Iraq was significant. At the least, our Government, and especially the American Government, were anxious to avoid the application of a Russian veto—they wanted neutrality. I shall not press the point more than to say that there has been a slight compromise. Although I can understand that, I appeal to our Government to recognise that they have an obligation in their public and private negotiations with the Russian authorities to say, "We want to work with you, to see your economy thrive, and to develop alongside you, but if you are not prepared to operate within the proper standards of democratic pluralism, to uphold your own laws, and to observe the international treaties that you have signed, you will call into question our ability to continue relations at the sort of level that both of us would wish."
If we say nothing, we endorse Russia's behaviour. We did not do that when the Soviet Union was in existence. We did business with the Soviet Union and had to engage with it during the cold war, but we continually opposed human rights abuses and tried to stand up for certain people. and probably secured the freedom of some dissidents as a result. It would be a sorry state of affairs if we were not prepared to be equally robust in the new situation, in which there is a real aspiration towards building democratic institutions in countries such as Russia.
We have enlarged the European Union, and have accepted eight members from the former communist regime, although admittedly none of them freely associated with the Soviet Union. We have extended the Council of Europe to 45 members and engaged in a dialogue to try to raise standards.
I made a reference at the beginning of my remarks to my role in securing the release of political prisoners in Azerbaijan. We have confronted countries that are struggling towards democracy and we have pushed, cajoled and pressurised them to move in the right direction. It would be appalling if we took the view that we could push around Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Romania or Moldova but could not do so with Russia because it is too big and important, and that therefore we should allow Russia to get away with it. That would be a failure of our responsibilities towards the Russian people.
428WH
It would also make it difficult for us to stand our ground with integrity in those other countries, because they would say, "You are only bullying us because we are small; you are forcing us to adopt difficult changes, but you are allowing Russia to get away with it." That argument was deployed vehemently in our debates in Strasbourg in relation to Chechnya, but has not yet surfaced with the same degree of passion in the context of abuse of political prisoners in what one might call the mainstream of Russian society.
If we do not make a stand now, and make it clear that what is going on in Russia is unacceptable, I am confident that that argument will surface and that the time will come when this Room will be a lot fuller of Members of Parliament wishing to express their concerns about the deteriorating situation in Russia. I strongly believe that we can express those concerns in a constructive, civilised but forceful way, and that it is our duty to do so as a democratic country, as co-guarantors of the European convention on human rights and as a friend of the Russian people.
We must not stand by and allow Russia to slide back into totalitarianism. simply on the grounds that that will provide stability and order, and that popular opinion is reasonably content. That is not good enough. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the British Government are willing to make it clear to the Russian authorities that they expect a much more robust and real application of both Russia's own legal processes and of those that are encapsulated in the international treaties that Russia has signed.
10.4am
Mr. Michael Moore: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) not only on securing the debate, but on setting out comprehensively the immediate concerns about a number of high-profile political prisoners and on painting a broader canvas of the human rights situation in Russia. It is at that particular aspect that I wish to direct most of my remarks.
As my hon. Friend said, Russia—as we now call it again—has been through huge changes in recent years. Our views of the country have changed rapidly throughout that period. We all shared in the jubilation and exhilaration at the ending of the old communist arrangements and the Soviet Republic and the associated democratisation in countries in eastern Europe, which, happily, as my hon. Friend highlighted, will be joining the European Union in a few weeks' time, something which has all-party support in and outside the House.
As for international relations, there has properly been a broad welcome for Russia's economic liberalisation and willingness to participate in international organisations such as the United Nations much more constructively. Sadly while significant and welcome progress has been made, our attention has been drawn increasingly to developments within the country, especially the growing evidence of abuses of human rights. That was reflected in my hon. Friend's contribution. Last summer, we had a short debate about Chechnya before the visit of President Putin. Again, this debate is timely as the presidential elections take place in a few days' time.

429WH
It is sad that in both instances our debates have focused on human rights, not on some of the other issues that I have already mentioned. We cannot escape the fact that there is a growing number of political prisoners in the country. A wide range of non-governmental organisations have documented more widespread human rights abuses such as detention, growing evidence of torture and ill treatment of prisoners, and significant restrictions on freedom of expression in the country. One of the growing, most alarming aspects concerns the thousands of children—one estimate puts the number as high as I7,000—who are held in prison in contravention of international conventions. Many thousands more are being held in pre-trial detention.
The situation in Chechnya was the subject of a debate a few months ago. It remains the largest scar on Russia's human rights record. The forced disappearances of thousands of people, extrajudicial and summary executions, arbitrary detention and torture, and ethnic discrimination have been happening on a grand scale. I accept that there are abuses on both sides, but the Russian Government cannot escape their responsibilities in such circumstances. It is more than an internal security problem. President Putin has said that it is part of the war on international terror. I fear that our Prime Minister has lent credence to that argument with his comments. Following our debate in Westminster Hall in July, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) put it to the Prime Minister that he should raise the issue of Chechnya during the state visit. All of us welcomed that he said that he would do so in robust terms. However, it appeared to me that he sought to justify some of the actions as part of the broader international war on terror.
Although I accept that there is an element of that, I hope that the Government have not bought that story wholesale, and will still put the case against Russian activity in Chechnya in the most robust way. The issue has not simply arisen in the past few years; it is almost 60 years since the problems in Chechnya began with mass deportations. We must not lose sight of that historical record, and must continue to draw attention to its unacceptability to this country and to the international community.
Russia must accept that it has huge international obligations to maintain and to develop human rights. It is a signatory not only to the European convention on human rights but to every significant United Nations human rights treaty, as well as the different conventions on economic, social and cultural rights, civil and political rights, the elimination of racial discrimination and discrimination against women, torture and children's rights. Sadly, there is significant and growing evidence that the Russian Government are in breach of each of those treaties.
It is symptomatic of a tendency, which was remarked upon by my hon. Friend, for the state to draw power into the centre and to restrict opposition. As has been mentioned, the parliamentary elections in December probably reflected the broad views of the Russian people. However, one set of observers described them as "free but not fair", and that should worry us all. A journalist into whom I humped the other day who is going to Moscow to cover the presidential elections was almost dismissive in describing them as "Putin's personal plebiscite". It certainly looks, in certain
430WH
quarters, as if there is a complete lack of any serious opposition. The contenders at the last presidential elections have mostly left the field, and many of them have been silenced in the years since. Indeed, it has been suggested that the regions that they represent have been punished for their having the temerity to stand against Putin at the last elections.
We have seen the increasing use of presidential representatives in each of the regions and President Putin has been increasingly willing to exert his control. The most recent examples of that were the sacking of his entire Cabinet and the appointment of a new Prime Minister. Perhaps most alarmingly, we are seeing the reemergence of the security and intelligence services as real sources and forces of authority within the state. Furthermore, the recent clampdown on independent television and media gives us great cause for concern. I appreciate that President Putin has brought a degree of stability and significant economic progress, after the economic and political chaos of President Yeltsin's era. However, increasingly, we must ask: at what price has that been achieved?
If we welcome Russia more firmly into the international family of nations, we cannot do so without criticism. We have a strong relationship, but it cannot be less than a robust one. We must watch this week's presidential elections with some care. Assuming that we can predict the outcome with some certainty, we must make it clear to President Putin that his new term must also mean a new era. At the very least, we must see greater access for human rights and international monitoring organisations in Russia. We must not meekly tolerate the abuses of human rights that have been documented in the country. We must give every encouragement to reform and to democratisation in its broadest sense, rather than go along with backsliding into totalitarian rule. Our relationship with Russia means that we have an important role to play. We must not buckle. We must not avoid confronting Russia with the abuses that make it an increasingly worrying member of the international community.
10.15 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on securing the debate. It is particularly timely as elections will take place in Russia on 14 March. Before I address some of the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised—human rights and political prisoners—I shall refer to the progress that Russia has undoubtedly made since the last presidential elections. I think that it was Karl Marx who said that political events arise out of economic circumstances. I am paraphrasing, but there is a certain amount of historical truth in that, and I want to deal with that aspect of what is going on in Russia, too.
Notable progress has been made in Russia, and there is no question that that can he attributed to the leadership of Vladimir Putin. He has had to take some tough decisions. Russia has progressed much further and in a shorter period than anybody could possibly have expected a few years ago. A decade ago, few could have foreseen Putin's groundbreaking state visit to Britain, the first by a Russian leader since the visit of Tsar Alexander II in 1874. Today, the Russian economy is doing substantially better than at any time since the

431WH
mid-1980s. Following 11 September, international cooperation is at an unprecedented level; there are links with NATO and the EU. The exorbitant and destructive defence spending that was characteristic of Russia has been reined in. Educating Russia's young people is now a major domestic priority. President Putin has repeatedly spoken of his abhorrence of corruption and those who have benefited royally from it; I have heard him say so on a number of occasions.
There is great hope for Russia. It can be a success story, and that can be an example to other countries in the region that are wrestling with the difficult legacy of the old Soviet domination and the command economy and the culture of governance that flowed from that.
Russia has had five years of economic growth; there has been a 30 per cent. increase in GDP. For the first time since the mid-1920s, Russia is able to feed its people and livestock from its own supplies. It is a net exporter of grain, and it is the second biggest oil producer behind Saudi Arabia. It is not only the wealth of the state that has increased. Real household income increased by 13.5 per cent. in 2003, and real income is up by 50 per cent. in five years. Although there are huge disparities of wealth and income, those are remarkable achievements.
Overall, living standards have improved. The problem of the huge divide between rich and poor remains. There is a President who appears to be riding on a great wave of personal popularity, in part because of the economic background that I have just described. I believe that it is inevitable that a desire for greater civil and human rights, particularly in the younger generation, will arise out of that economic prosperity and growth.
Despite all the progress, there is considerable international concern about some of the activity within Russia's borders. That is what the hon. Members for Gordon and for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) have addressed. As a friend of Russia, Britain has a duty to support the Russian Government in their attempts to address those concerns. Sometimes, that means understanding the unique and enormous challenges that the President faces in Russia. On occasion, it means taking a firm stance, and making clear the boundaries of international standards of behaviour.
In January, US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, visited Moscow. His approach was to deliver a message to the Russian Government— it was widely reported—that the west is vitally interested in the progress of democratic transition in Russia and everything that flows from that. Will the Minister tell the Chamber what steps the Foreign Secretary is taking to complement that approach, which has wisely been adopted by Secretary of State Powell?
Many media discussions on Russia have focused on the case of Boris Berezovsky and that of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which has been referred to in particular by the hon. Member for Gordon. To many people, including the much-needed external investors, the sheer unpredictability of doing business in Russia, with its so-called mafia links and the fear that an industry might be targeted, makes it a risky place in which to invest. For that reason alone, there are concerns. One way to reduce
432WH
that perceived risk might be to allow international organisations, non-governmental organisations and a free and independent media more freedom to scrutinise legal practice and human rights and to report their findings more openly. It would be beneficial to both democracy and the Russian economy if that were openly encouraged.
Open scrutiny of human rights and the legal process goes to the heart of the issue of political prisoners. Will the Minister express to the Russian Government that it is in Russia's interest to have a fully open and transparent legal and criminal justice system? It is true that in comparison with other areas of the world human rights abuses, as perceived and reported in Russia, receive widespread media coverage in Britain. The more Russia is seen as a big player in the world—which it undoubtedly is—the greater the scrutiny will become.
Reports of torture and ill treatment in police stations, and appalling conditions in pre-trial detention centres in Russia, are not isolated but widespread. Too often, those who are responsible appear to get away with their crimes. Victims have been denied their right to justice by local authorities, which ignore or condone complaints. The structures to investigate allegations and bring the perpetrators to justice are, it is reported, often absent. Corruption in many legions is apparently endemic. As I have said before, President Putin has talked about that.
President Putin has also talked about the need to establish a civil society and a sustainable democracy in which human rights and civil and political rights will be fully ensured. He is well aware of the problem. Last year, he described it as follows:
"The institution of democracy has not developed properly in our country yet.… Our lows are correct but they either don't work or just disappear".
That is an interesting insight as it applies to Chechnya, which has been referred to this morning. Will the Minister respond to that, and tell the Chamber what recent discussions the British and Russian Governments have had on the subject of Chechnya? Such systematic failure cannot be cured overnight, as is openly admitted, but steps could and should be taken.
We believe that what is needed in all functioning democracies is proper accountability. That applies across the world in toto, both internally and internationally. There must be a recognition of the problem by the Russian Government. Only by encouraging transparency and openness can President Putin demonstrate to his critics that progress is being made and that Russia is committed to meeting the highest standards to which he has referred. That is a key test for Russia, as it looks to encourage further foreign investment and increased co-operation with the European Union. Perhaps the Minister could use today's debate to inform the Chamber what encouragement and assistance the British Government are giving to Russia in respect of both those issues.
In the past, as it has admitted, Russia has failed to seize fully its opportunities. One example of that was the Russian authorities' decision not to extend the mission of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Chechnya beyond December 2002. That did not exactly send the right signal to the international community. It cannot be in Russia's interests to refuse international scrutiny from an organisation that has an outstanding record in fighting for human rights and democracy in many parts of the world.

433WH
There is much to cause concern about Chechnya, including the horror of terrorism arising from the situation there, which has struck people in Moscow. Terrorism anywhere in the world is to be condemned, and the slaughter of innocent people in Moscow has been truly horrific. In debate on 18 June, the Minister for Europe acknowledged the growing and serious threat of Islamic extremists in Chechnya. It would be interesting to hear about that front the Under-Secretary of State. Will he update the Chamber on what the Government's perceptions are of the threat posed by Chechen extremists in Russia today, and their influence in global terrorist networks?
Russia continues to meet important challenges. It faces a number of constraints, which have been well aired, in terms of what can feasibly be achieved in the short term, but there is certainly light at the end of the tunnel. I mentioned earlier the extraordinary progress that has been made in Russia in the past few years. The country has a President who has taken important and often difficult steps towards getting his country in place for the 21st century. As Leon Aron, a native Russian who wrote the definitive biography of Boris Yeltsin, recently noted,
"Defense spending has plummeted from at least 30 percent of GDP to less than 5 per cent. Last September Putin proudly noted that for the first time in its history Russia was spending more on education than on defense".
With the likely result of the elections being the reelection of President Putin, I am sure that he will reflect on the need to show that the Russian Government, in view of the continuing interest of the international community, will consider the issue of promoting human rights, the rule of law and democracy, not only internally but throughout the region that is so heavily reliant on Russia for economic prosperity and development.
It seems extraordinary that in our lifetime we have seen the transformation of Russia. It has been an amazing success story, and Russia is now a significant player on the world stage. We have to build on that, in terms of our relationships. Our criticisms come from our desire for Russia to succeed. A great deal of progress has been made, but just as its economy is evolving and there is more prosperity, so emphasis on democracy, transparency and the criminal justice system will be brought further into the spotlight. It is for us all to encourage the Russian Government along that route in the best possible and most constructive way
10.28 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on securing this debate. It is right that we should discuss these issues, particularly in the run-up to the presidential election. Before the debate, we were discussing the number of times that Members raise such issues about Russia. There is not, perhaps, the parliamentary engagement on these issues that there might be, and Members of all parties should reflect on that.
I wish to place on record my clear view that Russia is important to the United Kingdom strategically, politically and economically, and that it is in our
434WH
interests for Russia to be a stable, prosperous, democratic and influential member of the international community. It would be wrong to say that we want Russia to be isolated, and do not want to engage with it. In the 15 years since the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia has made enormous and welcome strides forward, and there have been vital democratic and economic reforms. Listening to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), I was struck by the fact that I am a child of the cold war and grew up with the old Soviet Union, but now, after a relatively short time, we face a very different Russia, albeit there are issues and concerns. I shall comment on some of those, but we should underline the degree of progress that has been made. We want that progress to continue.
Russia has, time and again, made public pledges to uphold and strengthen its commitments to human rights. It has done so through its membership of the Council of Europe and its commitments under a range of United Nations human rights conventions. Our important role as a friend and partner of Russia is to assist it in making good those commitments.
As the subject of this debate is political prisoners and human rights, I shall focus primarily on the Russian criminal justice and penal system. That was an issue on which the hon. Member for Gordon focused. However, I make it clear at the outset that we share the view of the US State Department, set out in its human rights report published last month, that there are no credible reports of political prisoners in Russia. That does not mean that there no concerns about prisoners, and I shall comment on that, but with regard to the accepted meaning of the term and the type of political prisoners who existed under Soviet rule, we see no evidence for or credible reports of such a situation in Russia today.
Nevertheless, a number of cases over the past few years have rightly attracted considerable attention in the media, in the House and from non-governmental organisations concerned with human rights. Most recently, we have heard about the case of Mr. Khodorkovsky, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Mr. Khodorkovsky, the former head of the Yukos oil company, is in pre-trial detention, facing a range of tax evasion and fraud charges. His detention is one aspect of a wide-ranging criminal investigation by the authorities into the activities of Yukos and its major shareholders. Platon Lebedev, his colleague and a major shareholder in Menatep—the Yukos holding company—has been in pre-trial detention since July 2003, also charged with tax evasion and fraud. Alexander Pichugin, a former Yukos security official, has also been in pre-trial detention since July 2003, charged with conspiracy to murder. Another major shareholder in Menatep, Shatanovsky, was found guilty of tax evasion in February 2004 and given a suspended sentence. Although he denied his guilt, he repaid a substantial amount of the tax claimed by the authorities.
As we have heard today, the lawyers of the three men still in custody have made serious claims about abuse of due process and ill treatment. Appeals are being submitted to the European Court of Human Rights. Needless to say, we are concerned about those claims and are monitoring them carefully. With our European Union partners, we continue to stress to the Russian Government that the rule of law must be applied in a non-discriminatory and proportional way. Justice

435WH
cannot be seen to be selective. It is vital that all necessary conditions to guarantee a fair trial are observed scrupulously, and that the conditions in which the men are held meet international standards.
Those high-profile cases raise more general points about the ongoing reform of the Russian criminal justice system. It is clear to us that President Putin and his Government understand the scale and importance of that task. That is why he has made judicial reform a key plank of his current presidency. It is worth acknowledging that there have been a number of significant reforms, and I shall mention some of the key aspects.
Significant measures have been taken to increase the independence and accountability of the judiciary. In parallel, Russia introduced a new criminal procedure code in 2002. That introduces a range of measures to curtail possible abuse of process in the criminal justice system. For example, a court order is now required for search and arrest warrants, which is welcome. Similarly, detainees must be brought before a court within 48 hours. Courts are no longer allowed to send cases back for further investigation when the prosecution has plainly failed to provide sufficient evidence. Significantly, as from January 2004, jury trials are being introduced in all but one of the Russian regions for the most serious crimes. In the long run, that will be seen as a significant step forward.
Malcolm Bruce: I put it on the record that in my conversation with Mr. Robert Amsterdam, he said that, on paper, the Russian criminal code is perhaps the best in the world, but in the case of his clients, virtually all the requirements that have been mentioned are being breached almost daily. That is the real concern. It was reported in the days of the Soviet Union that Russia had a model constitution—it was just not applied.
Mr. Rammell: With extraordinary foresight, the hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point.
The will to reform the legacy of the Soviet criminal justice system undoubtedly exists. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the key is implementation. There are some initial encouraging signs; in the areas I have already referred to, the number of people held in pre-trial detention has fallen; jury trials are producing acquittal rates in line with those in the United States and the United Kingdom, and there are significant signs that the judiciary is increasingly willing and able to assert its independence. It is particularly welcome that the moratorium on the death penalty remains in place, with a clear commitment by President Putin that it will not be reinstituted.
However, many implementation problems remain. In some regions, courts lack the necessary technical knowledge, training or resources to apply the legislation correctly. Corruption remains a serious problem, regional judiciaries remain dependent on local administration resources and of significant concern are the ongoing consistent reports, documented by human rights organisations, of torture and severe ill treatment that some detainees experience at the hands of Russian law-enforcement agencies.
436WH
We have therefore been working with the Russian Government and with non-governmental organisations to support the reforms that are already in place. For example, the Department for International Development funded a programme worth £800,000 to train judges and court staff and is funding a major programme on restorative justice. In addition, the Foreign Office is funding several programmes to combat torture and we are supporting the work of Nizhny Novgorod with regard to the Committee against Torture, an NGO that assists victims of torture and ill treatment to seek redress from the authorities. The project has led to the successful prosecution of a number of law-enforcement officials, which is a welcome and positive step.
Prison reform is another significant area of cooperation. Conditions in prison, especially in pre-trial detention centres, remain extremely poor by western standards. Overcrowding is a significant problem; cells are often badly ventilated and the prisoners may have a poor diet and get little exercise, which contribute to sanitation and health problems. According to Russia's Ministry of Justice, about 405,000 prisoners—almost half the prison population—have health problems, with desperately high rates of TB and HIV. However, the commitment and drive of the Ministry of Justice to improve prison conditions is clear. The prison population has fallen by a quarter in the past four years as amnesties take effeet, and prison sentencing is increasingly humanised.
We are funding further work to introduce non-custodial sentences on the lines of community service for minor offences and last week, Mr. Alexander Yelizarov, the acting Deputy Minister of Justice, accompanied by an eight-member team, visited the UK at our invitation. They came to learn more about the organisation and operation of the probation service, community service and the involvement of human rights NGOs. It was a welcome initiative, which shows how we are working effectively with Russia to tackle these issues.
Hon. Members have mentioned Chechnya, which presents particular concerns about human rights and the rule of law. We recognise the serious threat posed by terrorism in Chechnya, and in the past year there have been a series of devastating suicide attacks in the north Caucasus and in Moscow, the most recent being the attack on the Moscow metro on 6 February. These attacks have killed hundreds of innocent people. We should not have to say so, but we utterly condemn these monstrous acts of violence against innocent civilians.
We want Russia to succeed in restoring genuine stability. However, no attempt to bring peace to the Republic can succeed without greater efforts to address the continuing credible reports of human rights violations by federal and local security forces and the climate of impunity in which they operate. There continue to be credible reports of significant numbers of arbitrary arrests, detentions and disappearances in the Republic and there are consistent allegations of the torture of detainees.
As the Minister responsible for Russia, I have made my concerns about the situation in Chechnya clear to the Russian authorities, as have my colleagues. I made a statement last October in the wake of the Chechen presidential election in which I expressed concerns

437WH
about the conduct of that election and called for human rights to be upheld, for the promotion of a genuinely open political process and for reconciliation.
We have long pressed the Russians to pursue a political rather than a military solution in Chechnya; we welcomed the political process that prompted the elections, but so far there has been a disappointing lack of progress. There were UK-supported statements by the European Union before and after those elections that expressed similar concerns about the election conditions and human rights, and I have raised the Chechen elections and human rights abuses directly with the Russian ambassador in the UK. When I visit Moscow later this month, I will express those concerns again.
I will now address some of the specific points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Gordon gave a broad overview while at the same time highlighting some of his particular concerns. His comments contained an implication that he.was critical of the fact that the state visit took place and that President Putin was received by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. With a country such as Russia, it is important that we engage and discuss things, and the state visit was an opportunity for us to do so.
The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about the development of pluralist democracy in Russia. That is in a significantly better state now than it was under Soviet rule; there have been vital democratic reforms in Russia, and there are now more political parties. I understand the points that have been made about election results, but they broadly reflect the will of the people. However, we have concerns about some of the negative developments in the country's democratisation; observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe were critical of aspects of the conduct of the December Russian parliamentary elections. We hope and urge that they will be addressed in the forthcoming presidential elections. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of important concerns, and we need to consider them seriously.
I turn to the comments of the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). First, I must say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not justify the repression of human rights by reference to the war on terror. We need to have a grown-up debate about that. Every country that is involved in that war must strike a balance between introducing proportionate security measures to protect citizens from terrorism and upholding civil liberties and human rights. That is a challenge. Everyone needs to be constantly vigilant about the proportionality of the actions that are taken, whether they are necessary and how they impact on civil liberties and human rights. It is not an easy situation to grapple with. There are not necessarily any automatic right and wrong answers.
Mr. Moore: I do not necessarily disagree with anything that the Minister has said. Does he think that, on balance, the Russian Government are getting it right in Chechnya?
Mr. Rammell: I have said what I have said about Chechnya. Russia and the Chechen Republic face a
438WH
serious threat from terrorism. We want Russia to be able to restore stability, but it must also respect human rights and search for a political rather than a military solution. That is what I have tried to argue.
I turn to the comments of the hon. Member for West Suffolk. It shows how times, ideologies and politics have changed when a Conservative Member prays in aid Karl Marx in support of one of his arguments. However, I agree with a number of the hon. Gentleman's points. I agree with his remarks about the significant economic progress in Russia, and about the welcome fact that defence spending has significantly reduced. He also made important comments about President Putin's commitment against, and abhorrence of, corruption. I strongly agree that, as economic progress and prosperity develop in Russia, a thirst, commitment and desire will develop, particularly among the younger population, for civil liberties and human rights.
The hon. Gentleman specifically asked about comments made by Colin Powell during a recent visit to Russia. I endorse Colin Powell's approach of stressing the importance of partnership with Russia while expressing our concerns. That is the approach that we are trying to take and I shall adopt that when I visit Moscow later this month.
In conclusion, I shall summarise our developing view of the relationship with Russia. Russia is undoubtedly a key partner for the UK. We want and need it to be stable, prosperous and an important member of the international community. We welcome progress made on reform in recent years, and are prepared to continue our support for that process. However, we believe that democracy, human rights protection and open societies are prerequisites for long-term stability and prosperity. I genuinely believe that it is in both Russia's and our interests to promote those values.
Russia is incomparably freer than it was in Soviet days, and reform has acquired momentum. However, it is important that the momentum is not lost and certainly that it does not go into reverse. As supporters of Russia's transition to a new political and economic model, and as friends, we cannot hide our concerns, which we recently expressed in our annual human rights report. I have outlined some of our concerns about Chechnya. Like our partners and many human rights non-governmental organisations, we are concerned at reports of continued human rights violations by federal and local security forces. No political solution can be made to stick without greater efforts to address those problems.
Similarly, we believe that free media and a pluralistic political process are fundamental to a free society. Like others, we are concerned about recent negative trends in those areas. Internally, it is in Russia's interests for policy choices to reflect wide discussion of the options and input from many sources. Externally, Russia's partnership with the west needs a basis in shared values to be durable. Those points are important and fit with the approach to which I have referred.
I hope that the debate has provided an opportunity to air those issues and to give a clear picture of the range of actions that we are taking to support the promotion of human rights in Russia. Continuing problems must be addressed, and we intend to continue working with Russia on those matters, combining constructive

439WH
engagement and, if necessary, criticism, with assistance. By doing that and by capitalising on the will of the Russian Government and the substantial steps that they have taken, we hope to push ahead with the process of reform.
In any situation of developing reform, one cannot stand still; one either goes forwards or backwards. We are determined to engage with Russia to take the process of reform forward and I will take up those discussions when I visit Moscow at the end of the month. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon on securing the debate, and I hope that on the next occasion a few more hon. Members will participate.
10.49 am
Sitting suspended

Bridgwater College
11 am
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: It is rare —and quite scary —to come into this place to find nobody here and no debate on. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this debate on Bridgwater college. I do not doubt that a centre of excellence such as Bridgwater college is vital to a rural community. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) here; he has the Somerset College of Arts and Technology in his constituency.
One can safely say that Somerset is one of the most rural counties in the country. There is only one industrial town: Bridgwater. If one casts one's mind back to those halcyon days, it was the most thriving port in the fifteenth century.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John MON illiam): Even I am not that old.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I knew that, but one or two of our colleagues may be. It is interesting to note that an industrial town in an area such as ours has bred an enormous differential between the rural heartland and the industrial heartland. It is probably fairly unusual for a Conservative Member of Parliament to represent an industrial town. There is a large amount of heavy industry, such as British Cellophane, Ambersil, Royal Ordnance, Gerber's and others. In the middle is Bridgwater college.
Bridgwater college trained people to become industrial apprentices, whom I know all hon. Members miss. It trains all sectors of the community from the youngest to the eldest. It is a further education college that does much more than A-levels. It has taken on the training of all Bridgwater's forklift drivers for the industrial conurbation, as well as much more to bring itself to the forefront of the community. It is exciting that it is setting up many outstations. We all know that universities would normally do that. Plymouth university—possibly the most aggressive university in the south-west—seems to be spreading its tentacles. However, so has Bridgwater college, and one of the reasons that I wanted to hold the debate is that it has shown itself time and again to be a centre of excellence. I know that the Minister appreciates that. We have seen its rise over the past five years. It has had 10 years under the leadership of Fiona McMillan and her team, and became one of the foremost further education colleges in the United Kingdom.
I shall not detain hon. Members too long, but it is worth considering the achievements of recent years: the Queen's anniversary prize for further education, beacon college status, two Government-designated early excellence centre awards, five beacon awards, and two centres of vocational excellence awards in automobile engineering and early years from the learning and skills council in Somerset. There has been phenomenal growth. There are over 3,500 full-time and part-time students at the college and its outstations at Cripton, Minehead and elsewhere. There has been an enormous outreach in learning and skills.
It is rare for an Opposition Member to praise the Government, but I shall give credit where it is due. Beacon status has undoubtedly pumped up the college.

441WH
It has just opened its learndirect facility—my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton has been involved with that— and 190 people signed up within the first week. Learndirect has given people of all ages who do not naturally want to go into education a chance to do so. Two students who were a little older than the average student who I remember were delighted to be there, as they were achieving a life's ambition. Again, I give praise where it is due: the college has given people a real opportunity. Since 1994, the college has received £7.5 million of investment, and it has increased its outreach all over the place.
As the Minister is aware, Cannington college is an amalgamation of two colleges. Bridgwater's principal, Fiona McMillan, and her remarkable team have gone one step further. I would like to praise Fiona McMillan, who has just been awarded the OBE by Her Majesty for her work during 10 years of dedicated leadership. She has proved that the college is going places.
Ian Nash, the further education editor of The Times Educational Supplement, said:
"Of all the colleges who entered this category of Beacon Awards no other college came close to the marvellous achievements of Bridgwater College. The panel of judges who assessed Bridgwater's entry came away from the College with an impression of a place with an outstanding learning culture. We were particularly struck by the fact that the staff we interviewed saw no distinction between their personal development and professional development."
That is one of the most profound statements that I have heard. The college is highly organised, with superb teaching staff. Lecturers have rung me in the past few days. We talked about various things that we wanted to put forward. They have said that they were offered the opportunity to move on to Exeter university, to SCAT or to wherever to lecture, but said no and wanted to stay at Bridgwater because it provides the excellence that they strive to achieve as professionals
I move on to some of the college's results. It is a further education college, which is meant to specialise in A-levels. However, it does not; it is one of six in the country to specialise across the entire spectrum. If I were to read out every course that it offers, I, the Minister and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be bored by the time I got through them. Such is the quality of the place.
In the past year, the college has achieved a 99.5 per cent. pass rate for A-levels. The national average is 95.4 per cent. Thirty-one subjects covered by the college had a 100 per cent. pass rate. That is a remarkable achievement in anybody's book. It is also particularly pleasing that more than 74 per cent. of those grades were A to Cs. That is a remarkable achievement. So many people decry Bridgwater as the industrial town that people forget, yet we train the very best there. I am sure that the Minister will agree, and rightly, that that is what education is about.
I would like to mention other things that the inspectors said. If I am accused of blatantly banging the drum for Bridgwater college, I will plead guilty. I am incredibly proud of its achievements. In discussing achievements and standards, the inspectors said:
"The College achieves very good, pass rates on courses for students aged 16–18. In 2001, overall pass rates were 81 per cent., 80 per cent., and 84 per cent. The national averages were 66 per cent., 68 per cent. and 73 per cent."
442WH
The college is way ahead; it is off the Richter scale. Is that not tremendous? I am delighted. The college has also achieved enormous results at GCSE and went way above what it thought it would achieve.
There is a matter that I would like to ask the Minister to think about. Bridgwater college is in an industrial area, but there is a large rural area around it. A problem that we have concerns transport and getting students to the college. I know students who come from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton's constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who cannot be here because of other parliamentary duties. That involves a cost. I hope that the Government will continue to consider whether such students should bear that cost.
Another problem concerns the scale of getting young people to college. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and I represent constituencies in west Somerset, which has the largest district council in the country, but with the smallest budget. Its huge area includes Exmoor. If one asks a student from Dulverton in my hon. Friend's constituency or Minehead in my constituency whether they can get either to SCAT or to Bridgwater college, they will say that it is very difficult to do so. The bus service is not regular enough, so one has to have a car, borrow one or get a lift from somebody. One of the greatest problems that we have had is in trying to ensure that we can get those students to where they need to be.
As I said earlier, Bridgwater college has set up an outplacement in Minehead. Unfortunately, it has not yet done so in Dulverton, although I am sure that my hon. Friend would welcome that if it were done in conjunction with SCAT, to try to bring more students into the centre. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is not fair that a person who cannot physically get to college should be penalised for that.
I want to talk a bit about the leadership and management of the college. I will read this quite blatantly from the inspector's report. First:
"Leadership and Management are outstanding".
Secondly,
"The college has.… excellent links. Local community groups, employers, public services and local schools regard the College as highly responsive."
Yes, of course we are. In addition:
"Management information in the college is good and staff have a high level of confidence in the reports"
that they produce. That is wonderful. If one believes in what one is doing, one will believe that one can do it. That is vital.
In the remaining five minutes, I want to turn to the meat of the issue—the merger between Bridgwater and Cannington colleges. Cannington is our agricultural college, which serves the whole country and has been a centre of excellence for 75 years. Over the past few years, things have not been as rosy as they could have been. Due to various situations, which I do not intend to discuss now, the college needs help. I pay enormous tribute to Dugald Sandeman and his team at the Somerset learning and skills council, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, for the cool-headed way in which they have dealt with the situation, and to the Minister and his team for the kindness that they have shown in ensuring that Cannington continues to be an outstanding college.

443WH
One of our problems is that decisions need to be made. The corporation of Cannington — I am glad to say that that is of the old-fashioned type —and the governors of Bridgwater college will amalgamate the colleges under the guidance of Bridgwater college, Fiona McMillan and her team. Soon, there will be an application to the Secretary of State. It will sit on his desk, it will be from the two groups and it will ask for financial assistance. They will need that for three reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton is aware, Cannington college does not have the most modern campus. Secondly, the colleges are in the rural heartland, which is involved in farming, which in modern terms is not the most sexy of trades. Thirdly, and most important, they serve our whole county. When that application comes, I would ask the Minister and the Secretary of State to look at it favourably. It will come via the learning and skills council and it will have a financial attachment. I do not know what the total will be, although I can guess.
Mr. Adrian Flook: My hon. Friend makes an eloquent case about the need for Cannington and Bridgwater colleges to merge. For the record, it is worth pointing out that I have a number of constituents who look to both of those colleges for their education. It is vital that the skills that they bring to their areas are allowed to continue. If the best way to do that is to merge them, they have my full support.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I thank my hon. Friend. I know that he has done outstanding work on this issue and I am grateful for all the help that he has given to the learning and skills council and to both the colleges.
The Minister asked me how many people do not want the merger to go ahead. The proposed merger was put out to public consultation and 27 organisations said that they were for it. Only one organisation said that it was not over-happy. However, it has been unanimously agreed that it is an excellent way forward.
I urge the Minister on three issues. First, please do not let Cannington have any problems. Let us get this matter passed and moving, and let us ensure that it is a great success. Secondly, to enable that, Bridgwater college needs all the help the Minister can give, because its finances are being sucked into its own development programme. It has very little that it can give. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, the young people of our area have many problems with its sheer scale, which we cannot get around easily.
Horticulture, tourism, agriculture and food production —for example of high-quality jams —are subjects that are taught at Cannington. If they are not there, they will be sadly missed. I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to look at the application favourably when it lands on their desks in a few months' time, because it has the backing of the community, the county and the best beacon college in the country. If we do not get the merger right, all the work that has been done up to now through co-operation between Sedgemoor district council, MPs, district councillors, county councillors and many others will be for nought. I make my appeal to the Minister on behalf of Bridgwater college and Cannington college.
444WH
In conclusion, I say that Bridgwater college is a centre of excellence, and I praise the Government for that. However, there is still a long way to go, and we need ministerial help to bring it up to the best possible standard that we can offer our young people.
11.15am
(Alan Johnson):: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on securing the debate. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) is also present to hear my response. I associate myself with the positive remarks made about the excellent work of Bridgwater college. It is worth repeating some of the comments that were made, because they are not hyperbole. When we have an example such as Bridgwater college, we should sing its praises and record the fact that we have done so. Too often in the House, we deal with the problem areas and sometimes the centres of excellence, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater called the college, do not get the recognition that they deserve.
In this short debate, I want to ensure that it is understood how important the work of Bridgwater college is in raising standards throughout the sector. The hon. Member for Bridgwater mentioned Bridgwater college's most recent Ofsted inspection, which described the college as outstanding; it is one of the top colleges in the country. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the teachers, governors, other staff and pupils at the college for their achievements.
However, I want to pay special tribute to the principal, Fiona McMillan, whose outstanding leadership and management qualities have played such a large part in the college's success. In November 2002, we developed the success for all strategy for taking the further education sector forward, which stressed the importance of leadership qualities. In my Department, we see again and again the importance of leadership in transforming the education provided—we should not forget that the FE sector caters directly for 4 million adult learners and young learners, and for another 2 million learners in workplaces. Fiona McMillan is a sparkling example of the kind of qualities that FE college principals need which is why I am pleased to pay particular tribute to her.
The Ofsted report makes reference to outstanding leadership and management. It also recognises the college's excellent quality assurance systems and procedures, and its success in widening participation. It also comments on the outstanding support given to students who, as a result, are highly motivated. That is no doubt a good part of the reason for the success rates mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridgwater. The Ofsted report also mentioned the college's outstanding accommodation, and commended the outstanding specialist resources in some of its curriculum areas. It should be noted that Ofsted's use of the word "outstanding" is outstanding in itself—it is not a word that trips off Ofsted's tongue.
There is clearly much to pay tribute to in Bridgwater college—it is no stranger to national recognition. Recently, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater mentioned, Bridgwater college has achieved a remarkable record of success, not least in the number of

445WH
awards and prizes that it has gained. The college is the "Lord of the Rings" of the FE sector in terms of picking up prizes. I shall mention the awards again, because I believe that the college's situation is unique. It has received a Queen's anniversary prize for higher and further education. It is worth mentioning in that context that 11 per cent. of higher education is carried out in FE colleges, and that 40 per cent. of those going into higher education come from FE—the FE sector is central to the whole higher education agenda.
The college has not one but three beacon awards for inclusive learning, college-schools partnerships and meeting employers' needs. The Government have given it beacon college status. It has also been designated an early excellence centre by the Government. The college has two centres of vocational excellence, one in early years education and the other in motor vehicles. That is a startling record. The list of awards reflects a college that is committed to providing the best possible service to students, employers and the local community.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of further education. It provides diverse opportunities for more than 6 million learners and thousands of businesses. Every community in the country is affected by the further education agenda. I wish briefly to outline the national context in which Bridgwater college operates before referring to some of the specific points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
During the coming years, further education colleges will continue to play a vital role in taking forward the Government's strategies for higher education, skills and the exciting 14-to-19 years agenda that is being developed by the Tomlinson committee. The world of further education is developing fast. The high expectations of learners, employers, the community and, indeed, the Government are placing many demands on colleges. As I take the Higher Education Bill through Committee, people say to me that we need plumbers, not graduates. We need plumbers and graduates.
The focus on further education has never been more profound than it is at present. In the Government's success for all reform strategy, we stated our ambition of delivering world-class teaching and learning for all. We want to spread the Bridgwater college example throughout the country. We want Bridgwater colleges and high standards in each community.
It is important that we celebrate and build on such provision if we are to deliver a high-quality learning and skills sector that provides opportunity and choice for individuals, communities and employers throughout the country. Bridgwater college received funding from the Learning and Skills Council to disseminate its good practice as a beacon college during 2003. That is the whole point of beacon colleges. Bridgwater is one of the few general FE colleges that have beacon status.
Beacons are awarded to sixth-form colleges and to work-based learning providers. A beacon is not just a plaque to stick on the wall to celebrate, important though that is. It means work for Bridgwater college, which is why we are grateful to it. Part of being a beacon college is to spread best practice throughout the country and to be a mentor for other colleges. It is hard work.
446WH
It is tough—Fiona and others at Bridgwater college will testify to that. They are keen to undertake such work. Their passion and enthusiasm are commendable.
The clear sense of pride felt by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Taunton about Bridgwater college is tangible and completely understandable. I want all learners to succeed and all institutions to have the skills, resources and support to make that happen. The college is currently funded by my Department to take forward beacon innovation activity in developing curriculum specialisms and skills for life, which relates to the point that the hon. Member for Bridgwater made about learndirect. A total of £200,000 was made available for 2003–05.
The Government's aim is to give all learners access to high-quality learning experiences. We have shown our commitment to further education. The last spending review included a 19 per cent. real terms increase in funding for further education. Assumed funding for further education allocated to the Learning and Skills Council is £4.7 billion in this financial year. It will rise to £5.2 billion in the next financial year and to £5.6 billion in the financial year after that. We are providing additional resources and working with teachers to raise standards across the board.
The Government are committed to working in partnership with the further education sector to deliver our objective of a reformed learning and skills sector, so that in Bridgwater and throughout the country young people have greater choice and have higher standards with clear pathways to higher education. Older students will receive more help to improve crucial skills and progress in their careers and local employers can use a responsive network of colleges and training providers that are committed to delivering the skills that they need.
One of the problems that has dogged further education for a long time—as well as the strange and curious prejudice in this country for academic qualifications over vocational qualifications—is that employers have never felt engaged with the further education curriculum. Their complaint is that educationists churn out the kind of courses that they think employers want without taking the trouble to consult them. An important part of the programme is to change that approach.
Bridgwater college has already recognised that that will require determined action and commitment. It scores on all the points I have mentioned in relation to the Government's priorities. I commend Bridgwater college for its outstanding achievements. I place on record my thanks to the staff, students and governors. I have already mentioned the principal.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater spoke about transport, which is a real issue, particularly in rural areas, and in some urban areas. The mobility of youngsters and older students to access further education, sixth-form and other tertiary colleges is important. An aspect of that is built into learning and skills planning and we will continue to develop it.
The central question asked by the hon. Gentleman was on the proposed merger of Bridgwater with Cannington. The role of the Secretary of State is to give his approval to a merger at the end of that process. I

447WH
cannot pre-empt that decision. However, it will be based on whether clear educational and financial benefits will arise from the proposal.
The funding aspect of the proposal, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is in the hands of the Learning and Skills Council, which must ensure that there is the right financial basis for merger. Indeed, it holds the purse strings in that respect. Once the Learning and Skills Council is satisfied with that—and only when it is satisfied—the recommendation comes to the Secretary of State. It is inconceivable and impossible for a recommendation to come to the Secretary of State without the backing of the Learning and Skills Council. When that has been provided, the financial imperative and the financial problems must have been resolved. Then the Secretary of State makes the final decision.
I cannot give the reassurance for which the hon. Gentleman was asking, for reasons that he will understand, but I assure him that, if that proposal comes to the Secretary of State, it will be dealt with speedily and on the basis of the financial and educational benefits in accordance with the Learning and Skills Act 2000. Given everything that he said, once a proposal comes here, those issues will have been sorted out satisfactorily at local level.
I look forward to the ongoing contribution that all those involved with that splendid college will make in achieving the Government's ambitious plans for the post-16 education sector. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on securing the debate and, for about the 25th time, I sincerely congratulate Bridgwater college. It is an outstanding example of all that is good about further education. I am pleased to join in this short celebration of its success.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock

UK Economy (London)
2 pm
Harry Cohen: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting this debate on the role of London in the United Kingdom economy. London is one of the great capital cities of the world, a world leader in finance, business and commerce. It is the historic seat of democratic government and the monarchy and, more recently, the seat of highly successful city government. It has much to offer and attract. It is a magnet for creative people, a polyglot of activity. London is large scale, with a large working population, which delivers economies of scale and ready markets. I here is much choice and there is also lots of innovation with an easy transfer of talent and skills into both business and cultural activity.
London is of unique importance. It is a dynamic city and has world recognition. It is also the main driver for the UK economy as a whole, but maintaining the dynamism depends on continual, huge-scale investment. That cannot be taken for granted and it is not in anyone's interest in this country for the capital to run down and its arteries to become sclerotic. In recent years, there has been some recovery after years of underinvestment, but I emphasise that London's infrastructure needs regular renewal and modernisation, and the issues that hold back its people and business need to be properly addressed. There is a big pay off for the UK to do that, which the Government must take into account when deciding their comprehensive spending review priorities. Let me make four key points to the Minister. Most important, as I have said, investment in London benefits the whole of the UK. Secondly, it helps to ensure that London contributes more resources to the central Exchequer than it receives for spending. Thirdly, investment in London is necessary for sound economic and social reasons, such as to deal with the projected growth in population and the high levels of poverty. Fourthly, investment in London enables many of the Government's important national targets to be met.
On the first point London has a high level of productivity—in fact, the highest in the UK. It is 25 per cent. above the national average. That induces competitive pressure, which spills outside of London. We then achieve unproved competitiveness and productivity in the UK as a whole. Investment follows and spreads to other parts of the country. London attracts foreign direct investment, which frequently permeates to other regions in the UK. I know from my role in economics and security on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly how essential and prized for a country's economic prosperity is foreign investment. We must continue to encourage it to invest in the UK, and London is invariably its starting point.
Investment in London is necessary to maintain its global attractiveness. Many businesses in London would not readily relocate elsewhere in the UK. They would more likely go to other countries. London contributes more to central Government than it receives. According to the Mayor, in 2001, it contributed between £9 billion to 15 billion more than it received in spending. Growth in the city's economic activity as a result of well-made investment would increase that amount.

449WH
While a net contribution is to be expected from a region that has higher than average income, if London invests insufficient resources to sustain its growth, its international competitiveness and contribution to the prosperity of the whole country will be diminished.
Investment in London is necessary for sound economic and social reasons. There are a number of respects in which that is important, the first of which is transport. London's economic strength is highly dependent on an efficient transport network, able to deliver London's relatively dispersed population to its concentrated areas of employment. If we are to use London's projected growth effectively, the transport infrastructure has to keep up and improve. I have pointed out in past debates in this Chamber on London underground that the system already creaks due to years of underinvestment.
London's population was forecast to grow by 800,000 between 2001 and 2016, and to become younger in age overall. That growth in population is being promoted by the Government. In my area of east London, there is the Thames gateway development and the new Stratford city proposal, both of which are welcome. Transport for London expects demand for trips on all modes of public transport to increase by 2 million passengers a day by 2016.
Mr. John Randall: I have been grateful to the hon. Gentleman in the past for securing debates on the London underground. Does he think that things are getting better on the underground?
Harry Cohen: That is a good question. At least the money is beginning to flow. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was not a supporter of the way in which that funding was arranged; that could have been done so as to present better value for money. However, I would not be overly critical of the infrastructure companies—at least, certainly not at this stage—which seem at last to be getting down to the job that they are paid to do. There is some improvement, but much more needs to be done, especially bearing in mind the population growth that is envisaged.
Substantial investment of about £1 billion per annum from 2005–06 will be required. Failure to invest in London's transport infrastructure will result in losses to both the London and the UK economies.
Pete Wishart: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us where the extra £l billion, and all the other extra expenditure that he has in mind, will come from? Will it come from the regions and nations of the United Kingdom? Has he identified where in the Treasury that money is available?
HarryCohen: I will come on to that, but London, as I pointed out, is an area of growth; it generates growth for the UK economy as a whole, so any extra investment—and this is the nub of my argument—is money well spent. It generates greater wealth and prosperity. The money does, initially, have to come from investment from the Treasury, but in the longer term there are other ways to get it. I am pre-empting my speech, but changing borrowing powers may, in future, be a way of getting more money
Jon Trickett: My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for his city, but is it not also arguable that London is greedy? It wants increasing investment and produces more congestion, and then wants investment to sort out the congestion. Would it not be better to be not as greedy, and to hand over some of the jobs and investment to areas elsewhere in the country, thereby remedying the profound inequality in the nation?
HarryCohen: I do not believe that London is greedy. As I said, it is a net contributor to, and a driving force behind, the national economy. Its jobs spill over into other regions. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government have to have a policy for the regions—and they do—to create jobs there. I do not think that it helps the regions to damp down London's growth potential.
Ms Karen Buck: Is it not the case that one of the reasons why a number of London Members are seeking to argue for London is that, according to the Treasury's own figures, its share of national public expenditure has been falling in recent years? Its population has been rising during that time. Some of us want to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye to make that balanced case today.
Harry Cohen: The point is well made, and I will not add to it.
Failure to invest in London's transport infrastructure will result in losses to both the London and UK economies. For instance, if there were a failure to invest in Crossrail, the country would miss out on an increase in GDP of at least £19 billion. Analysts have suggested that Crossrail could support more than 20,000 additional jobs in central London by 2027. It would link the capital's major business centres, railway stations and Heathrow, and that would improve business opportunities throughout the country. I also urge the Government to approve the final funding scheme for the East London line extension. That will join up a significant proportion of the most deprived wards in London, bringing regeneration, new jobs and economic development.
I shall talk about poverty and worklessness. London is a city of great disparities. Inner London is by far the most deeply divided part of the country, with the highest proportion of rich and poor people anywhere; 48 per cent. of inner London children are poor, and ethnic minorities make up 29 per cent. of the population and have low employment rates. Women with children face particular problems in London's labour market. Policies to improve work incentives and opportunities for parents and people with relatively low skills are required. Increased availability of affordable child care and substantial skills training must be two key priorities for the Government.
The housing demands created by London's growing economy and population have not been matched by adequate supply. As a result, London's house prices have risen disproportionately. Between 1995 and 2002, the increase was 149 per cent. compared with 87 per cent. for the whole of the UK. High house prices create a need for affordable housing. The lack of affordable housing for intermediate and key workers has led to

451WH
understaffing in our public services, which are important. That is a major problem. Increasing supply, such as at Thames gateway, takes time. For now, intervention should be focused on making housing supply more responsive to market conditions; for instance, social home providers should be utilised more effectively. The Government should also give the Mayor and the Greater London authority strategic control over public housing investment, as is the case in other regions.
I turn to public services, and in particular education and health. The key problem facing such public services in London is recruitment and retention of staff. London has a high vacancy and turnover rate for teachers and health workers. Research shows that in 2003 the cost of living in London was between 17 and 30 per cent. higher than in Edinburgh or Manchester. The cost of living in London is particularly high for the lowest income groups. The only effective way significantly to improve recruitment and retention of key workers is to compensate them financially for the relatively higher cost of living in London.
I move on to crime and community safety. Although significant progress has been made in tackling crime in recent years, London still suffers disproportionately from some of the crimes that are most costly to society, such as robbery and violence against the person. Levels of worry about crime and incivility—antisocial behaviour, street drug dealing and use, litter, rubbish and graffiti—are high in London. These fears have a worse effect in communities where there is economic deprivation, black and minority ethnic communities, women and homeless people.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Would the hon. Gentleman say that tackling crime and disorder in our capital city is not helped by the Government redefining the police allocation formula for funding and then, when they do reform it, not abiding by it and giving London £56 million less next year?
Harry Cohen: The hon. Gentleman makes his point, but the Government generally have a good record on policing. We have record police numbers. As he will hear, I shall make a case for the Government to look again at funding and increase investment for the police.
It is essential that there is increased investment in policing, including fostering more productive relationships between the police and local communities. Better police numbers mean that more investment is needed in new police technology, new skills and training and better support services. I have been told that the Metropolitan police service infrastructure is creaking due to the lack of capital investment. In my constituency, the land where a new station was to be built has been left empty. Capital investment for the police must be addressed.
London's growth will place further pressure on its environment, not least in dealing with the quantities of additional waste that will be generated. The Government should consider appropriate changes to existing legislation to establish a single waste disposal
452WH
authority for London. Parks and green spaces must also have greater protection and must be enhanced.
The Government's achievement of many of their targets—including increased bus and light rail usage and reduced congestion in large urban areas—depends on investment in London.
Angela Watkinson: Just before the congestion charge was introduced the subsidy for London bus services was about £1 million a day. Does the hon. Gentleman know what the effect is of the congestion charge? Has it increased bus usage? Has the number of fare-paying passengers increased? Has it had a beneficial effect on the necessary subsidy for bus services from the taxpayer?
Harry Cohen: I cannot give the hon. Lady chapter and verse, although that is available from the Mayor's office and the GLA. There is no doubt that funds raised from the congestion charge would go to improve public transport. There has certainly been a big increase in money for buses and a better service on the buses in all areas of the capital, which I welcome. That is part of the point that I am making. The Government's national targets are met because of improved performance in London.
There are other targets, such as halving the number of children in poverty by 2010 and eradicating it completely by 2020, reducing the proportion of children in households with no one in work, raising attainment for 14 to 19-year-olds, in schools and colleges, reducing inequalities in health outcomes, reducing crime and fear of crime, meeting national air quality targets, and ensuring a better balance between housing availability and the demand for housing. If London were not performing in any of those areas, the Government's targets would not be met.
The case for investment is strong. Investment in London needs to be budgeted for now in the Government's spending plans. As part of that, they should allow a prudent borrowing power for the Mayor, the GLA and Transport for London for strategic improvements. In the longer term I appreciate that local taxation powers, which are currently under review, will be changed. The London-wide strategic role, which is part of that, needs to be recognised. Resources from high land values and, perhaps, from sales need to be accessed. London's rich should be required to contribute a fairer share, and the business centres in the City of London and docklands should release more of their resources and be better integrated in meeting the London-wide objectives, to which I have referred.
I say to the Minister and the Chancellor, pay up for the investment in London—it is worth it
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many Members are standing. I remind them that we have three wind-up speeches and that the object of the exercise is for the hon. Member who secured the debate to get an adequate reply from the Minister. If hon. Members keep their contributions tight, we could probably squeeze most of them in
2.21 pm
Sir Sydney Chapman: I shall be as brief as I can, but I cannot begin without thanking the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) for raising an important matter of concern to Londoners: the amount of investment and the way that the Government treat London.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned four key points, and I shall stress one of them. Nine months ago, the Prime Minister's strategy unit reported on London and documented what more or less every Londoner already knows. It referred—I am paraphrasing and giving a short precis—to widespread poverty, severe housing problems and a seriously deficient transport system in Britain's greatest city. I do not deny that the Government are taking some action and I do not wish to quarrel with that. Unless action is taken, the problems will get worse because, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is estimated that by 2016 there will be an additional 800,000 people living in our capital city.
An additional and chilling point made in the strategy unit report was the condition of the poor. As every hon. Member who represents a London constituency knows, there are great disparities in our city. I have the privilege of representing part of an outer-London borough. However, if one detaches the statistics relating to the outer-London boroughs from those relating to the inner-London boroughs, on virtually every index inner-London is the worst region in the whole country, in the sense of the highest level of poverty and so on. London is therefore entitled to sympathetic consideration from the Government.
Of course, it is true that there is more wealth south of the Severn-Trent divide than north of it, but the idea that everybody living south of the divide is wealthy and that there is deprivation and destitution anywhere north of it is quite wrong. I have heard the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) speak eloquently and sincerely about how her area has pockets of great wealth and pockets of extreme deprivation cheek by jowl.
In introducing his speech, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead talked about the disparity between what London pays out, in taxes and what it receives to run its public services. He mentioned a figure, but the figure I have is of the order of £20 billion. Whatever the sum, it is significant. All I say to the Minister is that London is entitled to have a review of the revenue support grant that it gets, and that we have suffered from its transference from London and the south-east to the midlands and the north. I cannot speak about Scotland and Wales, but I know that Scotland is very favourably treated under the Barnett formula. I hope the Government take account of that. If the gap is £20 billion, let us recognise that such a sum is the equivalent of £3,000 for every man, woman and child living in our capital city.
Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware of the research conducted for the Deputy Prime Minister's Office at Nuffield college, Oxford. It suggests that London does well out of identifiable public spending. It gets £5,177 per head compared with £4,724 per head for Yorkshire
Sir Sydney Chapman: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I cannot enter into a debate with him now. I
454WH
shall say one thing: if there were equal wealth and poverty in London and in any other part of the country, London would still need more because of the extra cost of living in London, which is considerable. London weighting is inadequate for most professions. I shall end by saying that we are talking about £3,000 for every man, woman and child in this country and, to use the phrase that we hear so often on the underground, London is beginning to mind the gap
2.26 pm
Ms Karen Buck: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on securing this important debate and allowing us to put on record some of our arguments as to why London's loss would not be anybody else's gain. My hon. Friend outlined well the case for additional investment in London, and how that would have economic benefits for the whole country. I am not one of those who argue that London's economic success should not be a means of benefiting poorer regions, or that there is not desperate poverty, need and worklessness throughout the country that needs to be addressed. However, as I have said before, one should not kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and it is important that we grow London's economy.
The London analytical report issued last year by the Cabinet Office set out powerfully a framework for London's economic growth. Can the Minister say what has happened to that report? Will there be the promised follow-up? It is important that we take forward the report's findings and recommendations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead made the argument forcefully for cash for infrastructure. That is the single most important issue. We must quickly move to a positive decision on Crossrail. Without Crossrail and some of the other major infrastructure projects, it will not be possible to meet the needs of a growing city, which is projected to grow by 800,000 in the next decade. Although Crossrail is a major project with significant upfront capital cost, investment in it will benefit the whole country. It is estimated that Crossrail will create GDP benefits of at least £19 billion over 30 years, and generate tax revenues of about £8 billion during that period. Such an investment is sometimes seen as a drain on our economic resources, but it creates the potential for much wider economic benefit.
I shall refer to the other issues touched on by my hon. Friend, including the removal of some of the barriers to London's economic success, with particular reference to its work force. Alongside a tight labour market, which is drawing in people from all over the country, Europe and the world to meet its needs, we have the worst unemployment of any region—7.1 per cent. in London, compared with 5.1 per cent. in the country as a whole. That feeds into the highest levels of child poverty, with 48 per cent. of all children in inner London living in poverty.
The reduction in unemployment has been slower in London than elsewhere, even while employment has grown. By the International Labour Organisation definition, since 1997 unemployment has gone down in London by an admittedly creditable 19.6 per cent. That

455WH
is a tribute to the economic management of the country by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, that compares with 29 per cent. for the rest of the UK. The claimant count is down by 41 per cent., but the figure is 46 per cent. for the rest of the UK. Long-term youth unemployment is down 71 per cent. in London, but that compares with 77 per cent. for the rest of the UK.
The measures that have been introduced, from the new deal to the tax credit programme, have been successful and have made a major contribution to poverty and unemployment reduction throughout the UK. However, they have not had equivalent effectiveness in the capital. If we could only close that gap on poverty and unemployment, I would regard that as a task well done. That should be a critical challenge for the comprehensive spending review, the Budget and the next Labour Government. The disparity is due to three major factors: the cost of housing, the cost of child care and the longer time that it takes Londoners to travel to work compared with workers in other parts of the country. That underlines the need for an efficient, fast and affordable transport infrastructure.
Higher costs in London mean that lone parents have to earn £7.76 an hour to be better off in full-time employment than they would be on benefit. In other regions of the country, they need to earn only the minimum wage. To reduce such cost barriers, we look to the Government to increase investment in affordable child care and to reduce housing costs.
A number of changes could be made to the tax credit regime to make getting a job more affordable for parents. We seek support for London to make a capital investment in growing child care provision and in bringing together the disparate strands of child care funding so that we can close the child care gap in London, which is significantly greater than in any other part of the country. That is a point not about service delivery, but about the economy.
Were we able to make that child care investment, we would reduce unemployment in our hard-core unemployment areas, reduce benefit dependency, cut the benefit bill and increase the tax yield, as has been demonstrated by PricewaterhouseCoopers and many bodies working in child care. By creating jobs, we would be able to stem an unfortunate tendency for the London economy to lock a substantial minority of people out of employment, while drawing in people from outside to take the jobs. That increases the pressure on the other main difficulty—the housing market.
My hon. Friend mentioned housing supply problems. It is particularly unfortunate that, at a time when second home ownership is growing rapidly and the buy-to-let market has been flourishing, 80 per cent. of aspiring first-time buyers cannot afford to get their first toe on the property ladder. That has implications not only for key workers, important though they are, but for the entire London economy. It fuels the desire for higher wages so that people can afford housing costs. The house price to average income ratio is 4:8 in London. double the figure in the northern regions. The average
456WH
private rent is three times higher in London and there are more than 60,000 families in temporary accommodation.
Mr. lain Coleman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important that the Treasury and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister should consider the traditional forms of affordable housing? I was advised the other day that some affordable housing had been designated in a new development in my constituency, for which it would be necessary for purchasers to obtain a mortgage of £425,000. In most people's minds, that could not possibly be described as affordable housing.
Ms Buck: My hon. Friend is right. There are two issues. One is to make key worker housing affordable. I have experience of shared ownership projects costing £300,000. The second issue is to be rigorous in ensuring that when we speak about affordable housing, we mean not only buying homes. There is and will remain a substantial minority of people who require affordable housing to rent. That is where there is the greatest squeeze.
I hope that, when the Chancellor comes to consider the next spending review over the long term, not only is the argument for the capital infrastructure made, but we take urgent action to tackle the barriers that result in London having both a flourishing labour market and a very substantial minority of its population locked out of the available jobs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cautioned Members earlier that they would have to be brief if they all wanted to get in. I now caution them to be very brief.
2.34 pm
Pete Wishart: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on securing the debate. As there is a London mayoral election in the offing, it does not surprise me at all that the London lobby is asking for yet more of the nation's resources for the city.
I concede readily that London makes a net contribution to the rest of the UK economy. It is the centre of one of the most centralised states in Europe and it has the vast majority of the nation's resources. It would be foolish to deny that, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman concedes that the interdependency between London and the other regions and nations of the United Kingdom is more complicated than he outlined in his simplistic opening argument.
I have often been depressed by the terms in which the situation is depicted. I remember sporadic jock-bashing episodes in the London Evening Standard—that we are all subsidy junkies, whingers and moaners. I hope that the debate has moved on from those days, but if London wants to go another couple of rounds, it must accept a few unalterable facts.
London is the most prosperous city in Europe. Its gross domestic product of £170 billion is larger than that of some of our European friends and allies, including, for example, Austria, Belgium, Finland and Sweden.

457WH
London has more millionaires per square mile than any other European city and contains the City of London, perhaps the most dynamic and prosperous financial sector outwith New York. London's economy is one of the most successful on earth, and it still seems to be a desirable place to live, as evidenced by the rising house prices and increase in population.
I concede that London has its problems. There is poverty in some of its boroughs and its transport system has struggled to cope with increased traffic. However, if anything, London is a victim of its own success. As its prosperity has continued to grow—a gulf has developed between it and the rest of the UK, and it is growing each year—it has become a magnet, with people wanting to come here. We should try to dissipate and redistribute what London has to the other regions and nations of the United Kingdom. That would make other places more attractive and some of London's problems could be alleviated.
Although we have devolution, the UK is still one of the most centralised nations in the world. People tend to forget that all the big Departments of State are based in London. Other than the Scottish and Welsh Executives, every Government Department is based in London, generating billions of pounds for its economy. It is extraordinary how little Londoners realise that. They probably see No. 10 and the big, grey buildings in Whitehall, but I am sure that they have no idea how much they contribute to the London economy. The same is true of the art galleries, museums and other tourist attractions that generate 30 million visitors a year. That is the hidden subsidy that London receives from the UK taxpayer, and that is not even to mention the headquarters of national organisations, quangos and the BBC.
London also does very well in identifiable spending, with London and the south-east securing 80 per cent. of all transport expenditure. The extension of the Jubilee line cost £3.5 billion alone, and heaven knows how much the proposed Crossrail will cost. As was noted in an intervention, Londoners do very well in spending per head, although I will not go over the figures again.
Mr. Coleman: Would the hon. Gentleman tell any of the 65,000 homeless families—65 per cent. of the UK total—currently living in London in tacky and dreadful temporary accommodation that everything is so wonderful here?
Pete Wishart: I concede that London has problems. As I said, it is a victim of its own success, and because it is prosperous, more and more people want to settle here. In Scotland we face the problem of depopulation, as London is a magnet for so many of our talented and bright young people because of its economic activity and prosperity. I suggest that we try to redistribute some of that so that we do not have the problems of depopulation in Scotland and other regions and nations of the United Kingdom. We should try to make the most over-centralised state in Europe more of a level playing field for our young people.
Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the policy of decentralisation that he suggests is carried out against the poorest people in London? They are made an offer of moving to
458WH
unlettable council accommodation in the north-east or north-west of England, thus leaving behind education, jobs, family and other relationships. In reality, we decant the poor and most vulnerable out of London to make way for the most wealthy.
Pete Wishart: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but I would settle for some of those people coming to Scotland. We have depopulation. We need people and skills to come to our nation to help rebuild what is still very much a struggling economy. The economy is overheating in London and the south-east, and he seems to suggest stoking up the fire. I think that we should light a few more fires throughout the United Kingdom so that we have some of London's economic activity. Scotland has a stagnant economy; London is dynamic and going forward, and we should try to redistribute those qualities.
London is so rich and powerful because all the headquarters are located in the city and all corporation and other taxes are paid here. For example, BP and Shell have productive oil fields just off the coast of Scotland, but the taxes and revenues go to London. If the GDP from that were included in Scotland's statistics, it would look much richer and London would look much poorer. That would go some way to redress the balance and deal with what seems to be a fiscal deficit between London and the rest of the United Kingdom.
I read an interesting report by the London School of Economics, which suggested that 4 million jobs in the rest of the UK depend on London's demand for goods and services. That is again due to headquartering. Marks and Spencer, for example, depends very much on the activities of its stores throughout the rest of the UK, and the same is true of Barclays bank and other national companies that have headquarters based in London.
All that may be necessary and we might have to revisit some of the investment issues as they relate to London, but I suggest to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, who made the case for London once again, that it is a victim of its own success. We should try to redistribute some of its massive wealth and resources, and I am sure that we could address some of its key problems.
2.42 pm
Mr. lain Coleman: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on securing it. I hope to highlight the key role that London plays in the UK as well as the difficult and specific problems facing London's public services.
I begin with the obviously contentious premise that what benefits London benefits the entire UK. Although it is necessary to acknowledge the real differences between London and the rest of UK, it is equally important to acknowledge how crucial London is for the life of the UK as a whole. Investment in London is investment in the UK and will help to ensure that London continues to contribute more resources to central Government than it receives in spending, as it very much does at the moment.
Needless to say, there are London-specific problems, especially in education, health and the recruitment and retention of public service staff, which should be

459WH
urgently addressed by increased investment. London's wealth and reputation may give it an air of vitality and luxury but, in reality, it is a city that suffers from a variety of crippling social and economic problems. If London is to continue in its robust role at the centre of the UK economy, it will be essential to stress the specific issues of London's health, education and public service staff.
London is a truly global city with more internationally oriented businesses than any other city in the UK. Those businesses and general foreign investment are attracted by London's ability to offer, among other things, access to vast markets, a deep pool of highly qualified labour and a concentration of business activities that is unmatched elsewhere in the UK. It is essential to appreciate that if those businesses were to relocate, they would not readily go anywhere else in the UK, but would be likely to re-establish themselves in other countries. Investing and spending in London to maintain and further improve its position on the world stage is therefore crucial if the UK is to hold on to the benefits that such global businesses bring.
It must be stressed that London's continued success as a world city represents an indisputable opportunity for the rest of the UK. London garners financial resources through its position in the world markets, attracts highly skilled persons to the UK and helps to generate highly productive businesses. Additionally, foreign investment in London often permeates through to other regions.
Angela Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman is describing central London. Does he appreciate the difference between central London, which attracts the sort of investment that he describes, and outer London constituencies, such as Upminster and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman)? Those local authorities are net contributors to Greater London schemes and suffer from a leaching of funds into central London. Outer London districts are in a different position to the one that he describes.
Mr. Coleman: I understand what the hon. Lady says, but I remind her of the comments of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), whose contributions I listen to carefully. He recognised that inner London is the poorest area of the country and has the greatest problems. In my constituency, some of the wealthiest people in the UK live next door, albeit somewhat uneasily, to some of the poorest. It is essential that London's role in the economy is recognised by central Government and the Mayor.
More activity in London means more growth in other parts of the UK. London's higher productivity—25 per cent. higher than the national average—results in competitive pressure spreading outside London, helping to raise productivity across the rest of the UK. Investment in London is essential to ensure that London continues to contribute more to central Government. As my hon. Friend said, London contributed significantly more to central Government in 2001 than it received in spending. Recent tax policies, such as higher stamp duty, are likely to have tilted the tax burden towards London so that the flow of resources from the capital
460WH
may have increased since 2001. I recognise that London, as the wealthiest region in the UK, should contribute more in taxation than it receives in expenditure. Yet for London to continue to generate the output and activity that enable it to make such an invaluable contribution to the UK, increased spending and investment must be provided.
Unfortunately, due to financial constraints, traditional Government methods of investment and spending are unlikely to meet London's need to continue to compete effectively. Therefore, we urgently need to consider more flexible methods of financing, whether that is prudential or other forms of borrowing from the Greater London authority. London's economic progress and evolution requires openness and adaptability on the part of central Government. I urge the Minister to address her reply specifically to my hon. Friend's question about whether the Government are giving careful consideration to the Mayor's request to be given extra borrowing powers.
Chris Bryant rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman promises to be extremely brief, I can just about squeeze him in
2.48 pm
Chris Bryant: The extremity of my brevity will be noticeable. Some hon. Members might feel that I have got a cheek taking part in the debate, not least because I represent a Welsh constituency—I see two hon. Friends nodding in agreement. However, I dissociate myself from the truculent attack on London that we heard from the Scottish Nationalists. It is wholly unhelpful, futile and economically naive to attack London from an ideological position, rather than trying to build a stronger IJK economy, in which we rely on one another.
The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) referred to poverty and wealth in London as being cheek by jowl. For many years, people in the Rhondda used to say, "We didn't have any cheek; we just had the jowl." That is one of the economic problems faced by somewhere such as the Rhondda, which is geographically isolated not only from London, but from the Welsh capital city of Cardiff. Yet the ties that bind the Rhondda to London's economy are significant. London is a gateway for tourism for the whole of the United Kingdom, because the vast majority of international travellers come through London and are bound always so to do. We must ensure that those tourists do not visit only London, because if they have seen only London, they have not seen the United Kingdom. London cannot take the benefit that it would like to if people do not visit the north-west and northeast of England, south Wales, and especially the Rhondda.
Similarly, the financial services industry, which is the backbone of the London economy, weighs heavily on the people of the Rhondda. The Treasury Committee recently produced a report on the transparency of credit card charges. I urge hon. Members to read about the devastation that irresponsible marketing by credit card companies can inflict on a community such as the

461WH
Rhondda, where people end up sleepwalking into debt that they will never be able to repay. As we learned last week, light-touch regulation of financial services is in danger of being featherweight. If there is no regulation of the financial services industry, or so little that consumers are not protected, the people of the Rhondda, who have higher personal debt than many in Cardiff or London, will suffer significantly.
I am wearing a Burberry tie, partly because Burberry products are made in the Rhondda, as well as in London. Economic decisions taken by the big houses in London affect what is left of the manufacturing industry in south Wales, yet the "man from Del Monte" attitude is often brought from London or international businesses to United Polymers or Chubbs in the Rhondda, which are told, "I know it costs £1.5p to make it this year, but next year we want it for 95p." There are better ways of enforcing productivity gains in the UK than that heavy-handedness.
Of course I want London to prosper, as any sane British person would, but my biggest worry is that it will be difficult if we remain exiled from the euro. London is the most expensive city in Europe, which is partly because we are still exiled from the single currency that is driving down prices throughout the rest of Europe.
Our financial services industry is likely to be threatened if we remain outside the euro. Trade and inward investment, which is growing in countries that have adopted the single currency, is being hit in the United Kingdom. If we do not join the euro our jobs will be threatened.
2.52 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on securing the debate. His speech captured the paradox in the debate, as there are positive things to say about London but many problems, too. Equally, London Members across the board have the feeling that they are underfinanced. I particularly identified with the comments of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) about police funding, which is a classic example of how the formula works against London boroughs.
An equally understandable feeling was expressed by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who was present for a short time, and by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), that the British economy is seriously unbalanced and London is over-dominant. I entirely understand that point of view; I grew up in Yorkshire, spent my early professional life in Glasgow and I represent a London constituency. I see every aspect of the problem and I sympathise with those who believe that Britain's decision making and much of its wealth is over-centralised.
It is worth briefly reviewing the positive aspects of London. It accounts for a fifth of GDP and it is more dynamic than the rest of the economy. In the past decade, 360,000 net new people have come to the capital. London is growing more rapidly than the national average and its average income is well above that of the country as a whole, although there are vast disparities within the city.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) captured that point well, as his constituency and that of the hon. Member for Regent's
462WH
Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) embody the problem. There is an enormous dual economy within the capital city. My constituency, which is a relatively prosperous suburban area, more closely resembles Chipping Barnet and Upminster, but there are pockets of extreme deprivation in council estates in my constituency that are as bad as any in London, or in Britain. The problem is balancing the different factors.
Various London problems have surfaced, the first of which is unemployment. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead stressed it enough, but London now has a significantly higher average rate of unemployment than any region of the UK. It is 7.5 per cent. higher than Scotland, which used to be at the top of the league, or the north-east. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North asked why otherwise relatively successful programmes such as the new deal do not appear to work in London. The answer is that they do not shift the labour market.
At a local level, one can see what is going wrong. In my constituency there is a chronic labour shortage. Students work in term time because they need the money, and they, along with people from eastern Europe, keep the service economy going. Five miles down the road, there is double-digit unemployment, but people cannot work in Twickenham because they do not have the skills or cannot afford the bus or train fares.
At my surgery on Friday night, I encountered a young man who embodied the problem. He was a young man from tragic family circumstances, but who had managed to end up living in a social housing scheme. He was enterprising and had got himself a place on an industrial apprenticeship, but that was in north-west London and his home is in south-west London. He had done his sums and, on fairly low pay, after paying his rent and rates, he was bringing home £40 a week to live on. However, of that £40, £30 has to go on transport. Obviously, he cannot live on that, so he is running up rent arrears, and he will either have to give up his flat or his apprenticeship. Many young working-class people are in that dilemma. We need some explanation of why the existing schemes, which are designed at a national level, do not work more effectively in the capital.
I would like to ask another question specifically on the employment market and Government intervention, although I do not know whether the Minister has the answers or whether the question should be put to the Mayor of London. What is happening with the London Development Agency? Its chief executive and most of its senior staff have left, almost all of its operational targets seem to have been missed, and the organisation is in extreme crisis. Do central Government have any role in the matter, and can they explain what is going on?
My first set of questions related to employment and the odd and distorted nature of the London employment market. My second set of questions relates to the housing market. My suburban constituency may not be typical, but when a modest semi-detached house costs £200,000 or more, one can see the horrible distortions that that creates. I do not think that any of my house-owning constituents would be eligible for legal aid because of the asset value of their property.
Such a level of house prices creates an impossible barrier to entry for working people. On the traditional income multiplier of three, one needs a joint family

463WH
income of £65,000 to contemplate buying a house, and of course most people do not have that. Consequently,people in modest professional jobs—working-class people have no hope whatever in that market—such as teachers or doctors with an income of £40,000 are buying houses at five times their income. They are therefore horribly over-exposed, and if the housing market turns down, as it probably will, they are potentially in jeopardy. That problem is partly related to the lack of new home building —particularly social housing—but is also a by-product of the overall crisis in the housing market.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead was right to suggest that overcrowding and long journey times are a major economic impediment. I support what he said about the East London line and about Crossrail, which would be a major advantage to the capital. However, I agree with hon. Members from outside London that those big transport projects have to be funded predominantly through the private sector. There is no reason why Crossrail should not be funded in that way, with additional funding provided through a supplement on rates in those areas that will derive enhanced value from the project, as they almost certainly will. There may be some pump priming from the Government, but the funding should come predominantly from the private sector.
On the funding issue, I agree with hon. Members who complain about the vast disproportion in public funding. There is an issue here that is related to what Galbraith called
"private affluence and public squalor "
It is not all private affluence in London, although there are some very affluent private individuals, but there is public squalor. That squalor is partly attributable to the distribution of national funding, however that is calculated; the share of public spending in the regional GDP of London is far lower than it is nationally. That accounts for the fact that all public services in London are seriously overstretched.
My party believes that we have to open that terrible can of worms called the Barnett formula. I know that that is a difficult issue because there will always be the sense that there will he losers if other people are gainers, but that issue must be faced. We must examine the potential for a need-based allocation formula.
Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman also concede that part of the problem about the lack of investment in affordable publicly-owned housing in London is that, at headline level, the figures seem enormous, but to build a council house in London costs vastly more than it does to build one in the midlands or the north-east of England, let alone in Scotland or Wales? We are based on a national formula of what is spent on housing but, in reality, we receive far less for our money in London than elsewhere, hence the lack of affordable housing throughout London and the fact that the situation is becoming worse.
Dr. Cable: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am in favour of drastic solutions and local planning committees. In addition, London government must
464WH
insist on a tough application of either a 40 or 50 per cent. rule for social housing in commercial housing developments. Throughout my constituency, blocks of 14 private homes are being constructed because that is just under the threshold for social housing, and little social housing is being built. It is a scandal and the Government should be dealing with it.
My last point is about regional balance. I share the view of non-London Members. The UK economy is seriously unbalanced. The reference to the headquartering problem was absolutely right, but we cannot direct the headquarters of private companies to the provinces; they will go elsewhere. What can happen is that the Government take responsibility for relocating some of their own activities. I have adopted the controversial slogan of sending the Treasury to Liverpool. The Minister might welcome that because it would be nearer to her constituency.
Apart from the merits of the proposal, which would save enormous rental levels between central London, the north-west of England or other parts of the north, it is a metaphor, not a specific proposal. It is a suggestion that the Government use their own leverage in respect of decision making and employment, of which there is an over-concentration in London, and relocate much of it. I hope that the Lyons proposals will be reflected in the Budget.
3.2 pm
Mr. Mark Field: London is a world city. Make no mistake, if its economy fails, the UK economy will fail. There is no doubt that London faces intense competition from a range of countries. I disagree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) because I do not believe that competition comes only from Europe. Increasingly, it is coming from further overseas. My medium-term sights are not on Paris or Frankfurt as financial centres, but on cities that have featured in my working life, such as Shanghai and Bombay. They will be the competition in the future, and that is something that the Treasury and Chancellor should pay considerably more attention to than has been the caw hitherto.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on introducing such a timely and important debate. By my calculation, he is the sixth longest-serving London Member of Parliament and, indeed, one of the five slightly more senior, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). Like me, the hon. Gentleman has the interests of the capital close to his heart. Since I have been an hon. Member, he has introduced similar debates.
Like all of us here, the hon. Gentleman has an eye on the general election. I want to take this opportunity to plug our own excellent local candidate in Leyton and Wanstead, Julien Fester, who requires a mere 19.2 per cent. swing to secure the seat from the Labour party at the next election. If the hon. Gentleman is a little complacent about such matters, I wish to point out that I am just old enough to remember a time when Leyton was a Conservative-held seat. That was at the famous 1965 by-election. I was only three months old. My mother told me that I cried all day, but I am sure that that had nothing to do with the fact that Labour had been defeated.

465WH
I shall return to the excellent debate. The historical importance of London goes back some 2,000 years. That makes it unusual. For example, Berlin was a small town in as recently as 1750, and cities such as Chicago barely existed 170 years ago. Therein lies a real problem. I refer to the sheer dominance of London and, to that extent, I accept what the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) said. Today, London is the political, commercial and cultural centre of our nation. Many from outside the capital city cast an envious eye over London's successes without perhaps appreciating some of its failures and problems, and wish at times to bring it down to size.
In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead rightly said that London is the historic seat of democratic government and the monarchy in this country. I also agree with his comments about the large working population and the fact that that brings with it a lot of choice and innovation. London has a unique importance as a city and is the main driver of the UK economy. His message to the Minister was clear, and I think that I speak on behalf of all London Members who have contributed when I say that we hope that the Government will stand and deliver.
The Minister may have entered the debate with a somewhat heavy heart, but she will have realised from the contributions made on both sides of the Chamber that there is a great deal of unity among London Members on a number of these issues. I suspect that one of the usurpers, the hon. Member for North Tayside, might think that the debate constitutes a lot of whingeing from London Members. but he should hear what we say about Scottish Members in the Tea Room when we have discussed these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet wisely recognised the deep disparities in wealth between areas and even within districts in London. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), my constituency next-door neighbour, rightly outlined the crucial importance of Crossrail. The investment here in infrastructure projects, and Crossrail in particular, will benefit the nation at large. Indeed, I think that she said that it would prospectively generate very large tax revenues. Likewise, she emphasised the importance of employment and unemployment issues, child care provision and affordable housing for key workers, whether in the public or private sectors.
The hon. Member for North Tayside acknowledged how highly centralised the UK has become, arid London is at its core. He also raised the notion of redistribution of much of the economic wealth that London creates. He is right to an extent when he says that London is a victim of its own success, particularly on issues of infrastructure, be it transport, health or education. I am not sure that I have all the answers, and I do not necessarily ask the Minister to produce them, but I will be interested to hear what she has to say on the hon. Gentleman's interesting and important contribution.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) made the case strongly for London housing the deepest pool of our qualified labour. He was right to point out that relocating much of our labour stock is easier said than done. Equally, he rightly recognised that about 65 per cent. of homelessness in the UK as a whole is in the capital.
466WH
The hon. Member for Rhondda re-established his new Labour credentials, in so far as they ever needed reestablishing, with admirable aplomb. Seriously, he made a relevant and focused speech on a number of issues, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response.
London's role as a global trading centre provides a great historical focus for Britain's outward-looking approach. It is often said that 55 per cent. of our trade is with mainland Europe—the European Union nations. Indeed, that is often used as an argument as to why we should join the single currency, but I say forcefully that the logical corollary is that 45 per cent. of our trade is with nations outside the EU. Often, they are the largest-growing and fastest-growing nations and will be the trading partners for the future.
Chris Bryant: It is precisely the nations that are choosing to do business with other countries in Europe that have joined the single currency. It is for the trade that we do with eurozone countries, and the fact that countries outside are choosing to do business with France, Germany, Italy and Spain rather than Britain, that we need to make the change.
Mr. Field: It is fair to say that we have done significant trading with many of those nations, but let us be honest: the power of the English language is an important part of that. The power of relatively deregulated employment markets—they were certainly very deregulated before 1997—has also made a difference in that regard.
London's historical trading is at the forefront of fostering and developing the links with some of the future economic powerhouses of the world. Equally, London's pre-eminence means that, as a city, we are estimated to contribute £15 billion to £20 billion to the rest of the UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet pointed out. I am not arguing that London should hold on to what might be considered our money, but I should like to make some observations and I hope that the Minister will consider them in summing up the debate.
We must remember that London is the showcase for the entire country, not only for tourists but for all overseas visitors, people who want to come and live here, and a significant number of businesses that wish to invest in the UK. Many businesses that invest outside the capital have representative offices in London. Therefore, investing in London's infrastructure is of key importance.
I entirely endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. I was going to say what she said—that there is a risk that we will kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Indeed, I was going to use those very words. Failure to invest in the capital's infrastructure might have serious medium-term consequences. I hope that the Minister will take this matter to the Chancellor because what we are debating is the need for a vision about a wide range of economic and spending priorities for decades to come.
The debate addresses local government funding as a whole. I impress upon the Minister the need to keep more of business rates in the hands of London's local government. That would help to fund vital services, such as the underground, Crossrail and health and

467WH
education. The contribution of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) leads me to state that national pay bargaining helps to discriminate against London's poorest workers; we need to have a realistic London weighting regime.
The lesson of this debate is that all Members—not only London Members—should seek to praise, not to bury, our capital city. Now is not a time for self-congratulatory complacency, but we must also not subsume London's economic success by introducing ever more tax regulation and Government obstruction. London's initiative and innovation is key to our economic welfare in the years ahead.
On regulation, I take on board what the Minister said about the debate around the Penrose report on Equitable Life; I listened to that in great detail with my City of London hat on. I suspect that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) wishes to say a few words on that.
Jeremy Corbyn: Almost. The hon. Gentleman has a concern for light-touch regulation. I want him to turn his mind to social housing for just a second, and support all other London Members from other parties who want 50 per cent. social housing on all new development sites—not just those with more than 15 units.
Mr. Field: My concern is that when I talk to developers in Westminster, many of them say to me up front that if they are told that they must have a 50 per cent. social housing requirement for residential accommodation, that does not make it worth their while to develop and they will sit on their hands. I appreciate that Westminster is an exceptional case. The set rule that the Mayor has proposed sounds sensible superficially.
Whatever target is set for the proportion of social housing, we must appreciate that key workers are people who work in the private sector as well as the public sector. The glue of many of our communities is people who are in relatively low-paid employment but are not necessarily paid from the public purse, such as many shopkeepers. We need a more innovative approach to this matter, particularly in central London where, as has been pointed out, there are strong pressures.
Mr. Andrew Love: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Mayor not only suggested the figure of 50 per cent. but commissioned considerable research into where that would be a reasonable target. The hon. Gentleman says that Westminster is not such a place, but the research clearly showed that that was not an unreasonable figure to ask for in Westminster.
Mr. Field: I talk directly with many property owners. They might not be the most Livingstone-friendly people. It is a grave concern that if a set target is in place it might be too inflexible for us to achieve the goals that we all want to achieve. There is not much difference in outlook and in the goals that we all want to achieve. We all appreciate that one of the joys of living in London is that the community is diverse, in all senses of that word.
468WH
do not want to see ghettoisation, either of very wealthy or very poor people, in parts of our capital city. We must allow flexibility to work to best effect.
Mr. Coleman: I met last week the chief executive of Berkeley Homes, Tony Pidgeley, who spoke glowingly of his relationship with the current Mayor. I mentioned to him two developments in my constituency—one at Imperial wharf, where St. Georges and the council reached an agreement, and one on the former Queen Charlotte's site—where the proportion of affordablec housing would be 50 and 85 per cent. respectively. May I suggest that the hon Gentleman tells the Westminster planners to talk to their colleagues in the London borough of Hammersmith?
Mr. Field: I shall certainly make such a request, although I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will have even more joy directly to his left, with the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. On a serious note, I should also be happy to meet the managing director of Berkeley Homes. It would be useful to glean his views.
I was about to sit down to allow the Minister to take the hot spot. However, in summary, I hope that she will recognise that innovation and initiative are key to London's success, as they have been for 2,000 years. Innovation has an important part to play in our economy, and I hope that she will take on board many of the diverse issues that have been raised during this excellent debate.
3.16 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on securing this important debate. His contribution was useful and interesting, as were contributions from all parties today.
I should like to start by saying that I do not think that there is a divide between what is good for London and what is good for the rest of the UK economy. I could not agree more with my lion. Friend that London is a highly productive environment. He pointed to the fact that productivity in London's economy is 25 per cent. above the national average; in fact, it is closer to US levels of productivity than to average EU levels, for instance. London makes a huge contribution to the UK economy.
It is not, as the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) seemed to suggest at some points in his speech, a question of somehow redistributing what London has to the rest of the 15K economy. It is a question of recognising London's strengths, addressing its weaknesses, overcoming the constraints on its growth and-—as he said at other points in his speech—stoking fires in the other regions of the UK to try to create there the innovation, enterprise, creativity and dynamism that are found in London. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) that London's highly competitive environment, its innovation and its enterprise are among its greatest strengths.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who says that London acts not just as a gateway from Europe to Britain, but as a gateway for tourists to other parts of the UK, including

469WH
his constituency in Wales. It is important for other parts of the UK that London prospers and thrives. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster stressed, London is a world-class financial centre, and it is important to foster its strengths. It is also important that it is outward looking and that it looks not just to Europe, but to the United States and cities in the far east. It is central to the Government's strategy that we have tried to create a dynamic centre of growth that looks more broadly afield, not just to its neighbours but to other parts of the world economy. We have tried to get that message across to our European neighbours, so that we have a vibrant EU economy that looks outwards, rather than inwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead recognises—indeed, he is keenly aware—that the financial services strength of London is one of the key issues that we consider when assessing the five tests on the euro.
In the remaining time I shall try to address the points raised in today's debate. A prosperous and successful London is, as I said, essential for a prosperous United Kingdom. Along with the south-east and the east of the UK, London is a net contributor to the Exchequer, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Some estimates have put the contribution from London to the rest of the UK economy at between £7 billion and £17 billion a year. London is not more heavily taxed than elsewhere in the UK. That contribution is a consequence of the UK's progressive tax system, where the wealthy contribute proportionately more than the poor. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that that is fair and right.
I must, however, correct a misinterpretation among some hon. Members that London does less well in terms of spending per head. I have checked, and according to the latest figures on spending per head in each region, spending per head in London was £117 in 2001–02, compared with the average of £ 100. There is more public spending per head in London than in any other region of the UK.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The hon. Lady said that Londoners are not taxed more than people in other regions. She will know that because of the extreme additional costs, there is a London weighting system for most jobs. She might like to confirm that the London weighting element is still taxed by the Exchequer. It is not untaxed.
Ruth Kelly: As I said, the fact that London is a net contributor to the UK economy is merely a function of a progressive tax system, which is supported by all in the House. London is unique and has special factors—many of which I will address in a moment—and we are trying to deal with those in London-specific ways, some of which have been raised today.
Jeremy Corbyn: On the subject of regional allocations of money, the Minister will have heard my intervention on the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about housing allocations. The reality is that substantial sums of money going into London do not go very far because of high land costs. Is the Minister prepared to review social housing allocations to London so that we get more properties for rent? That is the only way to deal with the terrible housing crisis that Londoners face.
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is aware that the Treasury set up the Barker review to consider the responsiveness
470WH
of housing supply and to address some of these issues. There will be an update on that in next week's Budget. I shall not pre-empt any announcements today. However, the Treasury is concerned with the housing market supply, the planning system and the responsiveness of the housing market.
Several hon. Members spoke about transport infrastructure. Public spending on transport in London is two and three-quarter times the UK average. Improved transport structure is essential to ensuring that London remains internationally competitive and that people are able to realise their full potential. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead spoke about some of our ambitious plans, even in his own constituency—for example, the Thames gateway project. There is also the London-Stansted-Cambridge corridor, which is creating high quality mixed communities to meet the growth pressures that success brings.
Hon. Members spoke about Crossrail. I cannot give any definitive answers, other than to say that, as they are no doubt aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is considering the detailed advice on that subject that he received from Adrian Montague. He will publicise his findings in due course.
Transport Ministers have just received the Strategic Rail Authority's procurement proposals for taking forward the East London line extension. I understand that that will be considered in the context of the forthcoming spending review. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead can look forward to that process. Transport will remain a vital component of London's economic strength. As he knows, the Government are committed to very long-term investment programmes in London, as in the rest of the UK.
The Government provide strong support to the Greater London authority, and the budget for the group as a whole was about £7.5 billion last year. More than half of that was provided by central Government. Fares and fees provided almost 40 per cent. of the budget, with the council tax precept providing the remainder. The London boroughs control a similar sum, spending approximately £7 billion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, who secured the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) raised the question of whether the Greater London authority should be allowed to borrow. I may be able to clarify the proposals that the Treasury has agreed. From 1 April 2004, the prudential borrowing regime will give the GLA and other local authorities new freedoms to borrow to meet capital expenditure needs in London. The Government have imposed no upper borrowing cap for 2004–05. That new flexibility will increase Transport for London's ability to meet the capital's transport requirements. I am not sure whether the Mayor is asking for greater borrowing flexibility than the Treasury has proposed, but it may want to discuss those proposals with him to see if they meets his, and its, concerns.
The London Development Agency, one of the GLA bodies, also plays a key role. I noted the concerns of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on that score. The issue is one for the Mayor and the GLA,

471WH
although of course the Government take a keen interest in the LDA's internal restructuring and how it has pledged to improve its service delivery. The LDA focuses on maintaining and enhancing London's international competitiveness and position as one of the world's leading economic centres, thus acting as a driver for the nation's economy. The LDA also addresses some of the market failures in the capital, particularly those associated with the high cost of housing, which I have already mentioned. child care, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), and business premises.
Many of my hon. Friends and others stressed the stark disparity in wealth in London. There are disparities between ethnic groups, between types of household, between areas of London, and between those with higher qualifications and those with lower qualifications. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Twickenham, key problems are levels of unemployment, which remain higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom economy, particularly longterm unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North mentioned the difficulties in respect of child care that have to be overcome before many people, particularly lone parents, can enter into the world of work.
Many Londoners find that they are ill-equipped to access its opportunities. They experience poverty, poor health and social exclusion as a consequence. The Government's strategy for tackling child poverty is multifaceted, but perhaps the most important part is to help each family to secure a decent family income, with work for those who can, and support for those who cannot work.
Some 20 per cent. of all lone parents live in London. We have considered that group in particular when trying to design schemes that make it easier for lone parents to get back into the work force. On child care, we are aware that affordability remains a problem in parts of London among particular groups. That is being examined in the context of the ongoing child care review, which will be taken into account in the spending review proposals. so my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North can be reassured that the issue is being taken seriously by the Government.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of the Cabinet Office strategy unit's report on London, which has been completed and is being considered by Ministers. A decision on publication is due to be made shortly. That is an ongoing process that will feed into the Government's strategy on London.
In conclusion, I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. If there are issues to which I have not had time to respond, I will be happy to take them up and respond to them afterwards. The debate has been extremely worth while and broad. I look forward not only to continuing to champion the cause of London in the UK economy, but to creating an environment in which other regions have the opportunity to share similar types of prosperity to those experienced in parts of the London region.

Sure Start
3.30 pm
Liz Blackman: I am pleased to have secured this debate. I stress at the outset that the subject of extending Sure Start is firmly set within the early years framework and is in recognition of the Government's massive commitment to, funding of and progress on that sector.
I remind hon. Members that the key developments to date include the national child care strategy, which was launched in 1998 to ensure accessible, affordable and quality child care. There have been huge expansions in child care provision in the public, private and voluntary sectors. So far, 1.6 million children have benefited, and that figure is set to rise to 2 million by 2006. Neighbourhood nurseries are providing 50,000 new places, of which 45,000 have been given. Sure Start local programmes, of which there are 524, and mini-programmes have made an enormous contribution.
A network of children's centres is rolling out in disadvantaged areas and extending the Sure Start principle. It is providing good-quality child care, early education, family and health services, alongside training and employment advice. All those programmes are rightly located in the Sure Start unit. They do not constitute all the initiatives, but they are important measures to support families and to lift children out of poverty. No Government have done as much on that agenda.
In 1997, following the comprehensive spending review, a cross-cutting review was set up of services for young children. That was on the basis of concern that those services were not functioning adequately, that money was not effectively spent and that they were failing those in greatest need. The review's findings confirmed those concerns. Therefore, in 1998, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced plans for Sure Start to bring together quality integrated services for under-threes through community-based local settings.
The rationale for the programme was the evidence base from the United States programmes, which were targeted at poorer children. For example, Early Head Start in the USA found that, for every $1 spent in early years intervention, $4 was saved in crime, social security and mental health costs. There were statistically significant positive impacts on learning, social emotional development and parenting outcomes. Similarly, an evaluation of the Perry pre-school study by High/Scope found that, when 27-year-olds went through the programme, there was a positive impact in terms of arrests, drug dealing, earnings. education performance and stable relationships. There were also enormous cost-benefits. The study described it as
"an extremely good economic investment, better than the stock market during the same period of time"
The National Evaluation of Sure Start was set up to examine its effectiveness and impact on children, families and communities. Its methodological report executive summary noted that the Sure Start model presumes that changes in existing services will lead to improved service delivery and, ultimately, to enhanced child, family and community functioning.
The programmes were to be targeted at the 20 per cent. poorest wards and were to be rolled out in six waves. Sure Start in Erewash is in the fifth wave. NESS

473WH
agreed with that targeted decision because local programme areas experienced consistently worse deprivation across a number of indicators, including child and adult health, educational achievement, school behaviour, crime, unemployment and benefit dependency.
The common features for each programme are mandatory. It must provide outreach and home visiting, support for families and parents, good-quality play and learning, primary and community health care, support for children and parents to access services, and parental representation on local boards. To make progress, beyond those core elements there is a higher degree of flexibility. Innovation and local initiative are positively encouraged.
Four objectives to improve Sure Start service delivery were initially set, and a fifth has since been added. They are improving social and emotional development; improving health; improving learning; strengthening families and communities; and the availability of accessible, affordable and quality child care, which was added later. For each objective, public service agreements or targets are attached. Initial targets have been amended and further developed to include, for example, increasing the number of households with someone working, and improving children's language development.
Some initial targets and outcomes have been reported on. There has been success in reducing the number of children re-registered on the child protection register, which was an early target that no longer exists. The number of parents going back to work from households where no one was working has also gone up. Parents say that the information that is given h good, and nine out of 10 parents reported improvements in the quality of services. Sure Start was in contact with 90 per cent. of parents within two months of birth, and that target has been adjusted slightly to include contact prior to birth. The only target that is significantly failing is that for the reduction in pregnant mums' smoking.
Studies in the United States took a long time to produce a through-life evaluation, because benefits of these schemes are short, medium and long term. Nevertheless, there is encouraging progress. A 2002 report by NESS noted high pa rental involvement, voluntary organisations engaged in nearly all partnerships, a wide range of mechanisms to access services, good progress on partnership working, and an encouraging number of volunteers coming forward, with an average of 20 for each scheme. The flexibility given to local programmes has allowed them to be innovative and to respond to their communities. Many right hon. and hon. Members have heaped praise on their own local programmes, because they, like me, can see them working.
Erewash Sure Start has hit the ground running following best partnership multidisciplinary working with parents in key positions. There are many innovative programmes. For example, one notable achievement is the removal of all children in the scheme from the waiting list for a speech therapist—they now all have one. Volunteering is also excellent.
There are many other examples of success, which have been quoted before. In Corby, the number of children who have a special needs assessment before
474WH
entering school has been cut by 10 per cent. In Leicester, children's referrals to emergency social services have been cut by 40 per cent. Leicester has also improved and expanded breast cancer counselling support by delivering it through a volunteering parent group, which has been trained. Interestingly, that peer approach is working much better than using professionals. In a London borough, children who were referred to the early years programme by social services are now performing as well at key stage 1 as children from far more advantageous homes.
Today's debate is about extending Sure Start, and the Children Bill is an exemplary way forward. It sets a sound statutory framework for partnership working; common objectives, a common assessment and an integrated inspection framework; rationalised budgets and simplified funding; greater freedoms and flexibilities for local circumstances; the commissioning of key services through a children's trust; the appointment of children's directors; and better information sharing and parental involvement. That is all to be welcomed. Local flexibility is at the heart of the Bill.
However, I want to see early intervention and co-located services in all areas, as Sure Start programmes have been a resounding success, meeting need while retaining individuality. I flag up my concerns about the tentative words in paragraph 3.10 of "Every child matters:the next steps". We want all local authorities and children's trusts to consider co-locating health, family and parenting support services for children and their families within good-quality early education and child care settings. That will provide easier access to a wide range of support for the whole family.
Ideally, I want that to be firmed up. Such an approach is a proven recipe for success, evidenced in the US schemes and the encouraging outcomes from our own local programmes and children's centres. Also, children's trusts are not statutory organisations, although they are expected to consider joint commissioning. On that point, appointments of children's directors are key to the success of early years arrangements. I seek reassurance that that process will be extremely rigorous. Will regional Sure Start managers, or local managers with excellent track records be involved in such appointments? Vitally, will parents and young people be involved?
My right hon. Friend the Minister recognises that the Children Bill is the first step in a long-term programme of change, with the last directors not in place until 2008. In the meantime, 46 per cent. of deprived children live outside the 20 per cent. most deprived wards. As Sure Start has proved its worth, I am impatient for further local progress. There is much best practice and good partnership working to build on.
Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is referring to the extension of Sure Start, but she referred earlier to the success of Sure Start in her constituency in taking children off the waiting list for speech therapists. Unfortunately, that is not true in my constituency, and I know that there is a shortage of speech therapists around the country. The ability of a child to express themselves is one of the most important parts of their

475WH
self-development. Does my hon. Friend hope that in conjunction with the expansion of Sure Start there will be an expansion of speech therapist provision?
Liz Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I believe that there is not only an intention, but a programme to ensure that more speech therapists are trained. I was surprised that the scheme in my constituency managed to secure the professional work of a speech therapist, but apparently that was quite easy. However, I will wait for the Minister to confirm that speech therapy is a priority.
Camden is an example of a council that has forged ahead of the game. It has had an early years focus for many years. It has been so impressed with its five Sure Start schemes that it is rolling out the programme and will mainstream it—I think that it is the first council to do so.
The council has been wholly persuaded that early intervention, linking services and involving parents have the greatest impact on child development and poverty. A decision was taken that funding would be top-sliced without compromising passporting, and that it would be used to enhance existing local programmes through multi-agency parent support teams, drop-ins and community involvement in small areas. The council also funds extra family support and more subsidised nursery places being brought together in children's centres.
All local partnership boards were consulted and signed up to that way of working. Those extended areas will be coterminous with primary care trust localities, and smaller partnership hoards will be set up for smaller areas. A Camden-wide Sure Start co-ordinating team already exists at the local education authority. It comprises a lead officer, a business manager, data and information officers and others, all supporting the project. The target date for roll-out is 2006.
Having five Sure Start schemes was an advantage for Camden, but commitment and creative thinking have allowed it to move forward. I know that the Government already support mainstreaming projects in some districts with a number of local programmes, but Camden did it first and there must be scope for others to follow sooner rather than later.
Other areas have far fewer programmes. My constituency has one, but it has developed skills to work across two areas—because it was part of a later wave, there was more flexibility. Some early strategic thinking by LEAs, PCTs and others, and additional seed-corn funding from those organisations could establish structures, including a central co-ordinating team. Identifying potential roll-out areas, encouraging key local people to learn through existing programmes and, where possible, implementing Sure Start principles and practice would be an excellent precursor to the Children Bill and children's trusts. It would begin to change the culture and practice at grass-roots level.
There is a wealth of capacity from volunteers, as I have already highlighted. In the words of Barnardo's,
"integrated pre-school settings, such as Sure Start, bring about the best outcomes for children"
476WH
What encouragement can be given to local authorities. primary care trusts, the voluntary sector and community groups to move further ahead? They know that new legislation is on the way, and moving towards a Sure Start approach can only be a good thing.
3.44 pm
The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) on securing this debate. I have had more representations in favour of additional funding for Sure Start from hon. Members across the political spectrum than anything else. It is a bit of an irony: everybody loves Sure Start, but not many hon. Members have chosen to come to have their say in this debate, which is a bit sad. Nevertheless, I am pleased that they like it and I would be delighted with any additional resources that we can secure to ensure the expansion of the programme.
I share my hon. Friend's commitment to the importance of investing in the early years. She comes to the issue having considered a lot of the powerful American research into investment in integrated services in the early years and into the impact that that can have on children's life chances. I come to the issue from that direction, but also from work that has been done in the UK by Feinstein, which shows how children from different socio-economic backgrounds start off very different competences at an early age. One can start measuring their cognitive skills at 20 months.
Children from lower socio-economic backgrounds can have high cognitive skills and those from high socioeconomic backgrounds can have low cognitive skills at that age. What is depressing about the research is that, by the time one locks into school, class has overridden those early cognitive skills. The children with low cognitive skills in a higher socio-economic group outperform those with high cognitive skills from the low socio-economic group
We should try to find ways in which children showing potential at an early age can realise it. That is at the heart of the Sure Start programme. If we really are committed to equalising outcomes on the basis of equality of opportunity, that has to be by investing in the early years. I came back from Sweden last week, and it is very telling that, after 30 years' investment, children there are offered far more equal opportunity. Far fewer children die from child abuse there, and I think that one of the reasons for that is the early investment in parenting support, family support and children's opportunities. That can help to deal with some of the tensions in family life that can lead to abuse, so other good results can come out of such early investment.
I looked with envy at the fact that in Sweden about 2.5 per cent. of gross domestic product is spent on early years services. Despite the very successful and massive expansion under the Labour Government, we still spend under 0.5 per cent. of GDP on early years services.
The early years are crucial. My hon. Friend mentioned Leicester and Corby as two examples. I opened a new children's centre in Hertfordshire this morning. It is a nursery school that has expanded into a children's centre and provides all the multi-agency services to children from the early years to age five. The headmistress finds that, as the children embark on their

477WH
nursery education experience, those who have been able to take advantage of the early years services are even readier to do better than those who have not had that experience. Intervention from birth is very important.
My hon. Friend spoke about her experience of speech and language therapists and the benefit that she has experienced locally. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked whether we are expanding their use, and the answer is yes but it takes time. However, some interesting local experiments are taking place, involving the cascading of speech and language therapy knowledge and techniques to those who have not undertaken the full training programme but who can, in the nursery or pre-school setting, do sufficient work to help the development of children's language. That will allow para-professionals to work in early years settings and is one way of growing the competences more quickly than through the full training programme, which takes a long time to produce fully trained professionals, of whom we need more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash mentioned our record to date, and it is worth reiterating that, before we came to office, there was hardly anything for children in their early years. There was no national child care strategy. We now have places for 1.2 million children, which did not exist before. There was no commitment to nursery education, but we now have a universal service throughout the country, so that all three and four-year-olds can have access to part-time nursery education for five days a week. We managed to deliver that six months before we said we would in our 1997 pledge.
There are more than 500 Sure Start programmes throughout the country, all of which are benefiting the children living in those areas. They are situated in the most deprived areas in the country, which is important in ensuring that those who can benefit most from early intervention have the opportunity to do so.
As my hon. Friend knows, we are trying to bring together the experience that we have gained with all the initiatives that we have tried during the past five years into the concept of children's centres. It is worth reiterating for the record what children's centres will deliver. They will provide good-quality early years education combined with full day-care provision for children of a minimum of 10 hours a day, five days a week for 48 weeks in the year. That provision will be substantially led by a teacher to ensure that we sustain and enhance quality.
The centres will provide an important outreach to parents. If I came back with only one plea from my visit this morning to Hatfield, it was that we should invest more in supporting parents in the difficult task of bringing up their children. The centres will provide a range of family support services, including child and family health services and antenatal and health visiting services. They will provide support to children and parents with special needs, and I know that my hon. Friend has a particular interest as chair of the all-party group on autism. The centres will provide strong links with Jobcentre Plus, local training providers and further and higher education institutions, so that they can support our welfare-to-work strategy, which aims to lift children out of poverty by providing job opportunities for their parents.
478WH
The model that we have developed for England is stronger than those that I have seen in some of the Scandinavian countries. Investment in those countries has been made over a longer time, but it has been on the welfare-to-work agenda, providing child care to enable parents to participate in the labour market. Our model is more child focused, takes a more holistic approach to the needs of the child and, over time, will prove more effective in turning around children's opportunities.
My hon. Friend made several points about the Children Bill and spoke about how, through it, we are embedding early intervention and working together across professional boundaries as key features of the delivery of services for children, not just in their early years but through all childhood and youth, from nought to 19. She asked me whether Sure Start managers will be involved in appointing children's directors, which is an important part of the proposal. I cannot promise that, because it is an issue for local authorities to determine, but the posts will be crucial because they will ensure proper accountability. They will embody the integration that we want in the front-line professional services that touch children's lives.
On whether children would be involved in the appointments, that, too, will be a matter for local authorities. It is part of our thinking to put children and young people at the heart of everything we do to configure and provide services. We want children to be involved in the appointment of a children's commissioner for England.
One of the big culture changes that makes co-location so important is that we want people who are not used to working together, whether they are from health, teaching or social care professions, to develop a mutual understanding of children's development. We want them to work across boundaries—even developing the same vocabulary would be a start. Co-location is one of the levers we can use to encourage that culture change. The others are leadership, training, the pooling of budgets and to set and to inspect targets for children's services in the locality.
My hon. Friend drew attention to what Camden is doing to bring the Sure Start programme into the mainstream and I entirely agree with what she said. One of my strong messages has always been that people do not have to wait for extra Government funding to change the way in which existing services for children are delivered in their locality.
Before the debate, I was engaged with officials in working out how to recognise and to brand the next group of children's centres. Although we will fund many of them, we hope to find mechanisms to brand others that do not get specific Government targeting, but which have all the features that I described, which we want in a children's centre. As my hon. Friend said, this is all about commitment and creative thinking. We want to spread knowledge and understanding of new ways of working, building services around the child and working together in multi-agency teams to improve outcomes for children. I am sure that, as we build and spread that knowledge, local authorities will respond by reconfiguring their services in a much shorter time than Government funding will enable us to do.
My hon. Friend asked what encouragement we could give and whether there would be some seed-corn funding for potential roll-out in the areas. I will consider

479WH
that further. However, we have given money to some areas that are not in the most deprived wards in England, but where just a bit extra will enable them to develop a Sure Start children's centre. We are considering what further work we can do to encourage that development.
Much of the Children Bill is built on what we have learnt on what works for children through the Sure Start programme. We want to spread that learning throughout children's lives from nought to 19, not just in education and social care, but through children's trusts, extended schools, the development of children's directors and integrated local services, and by bringing into the community health services that work with children.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Although short, it has been fruitful and I look forward to further opportunities to discuss the issues to enable us to provide equality of opportunity, which is at the heart of what politics should be about

Older People (Sutton)
3.59 pm
Mr. Paul Burstou: I start with what I hope the Minister will regard as a piece of good news. The Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill, a private Member's BAI currently going through the House, has just concluded its Committee stage and has emerged without a vote and with a clear consensus that we hope will see it make its way on to the statute book. In a previous incarnation as a Back Bencher, the Minister introduced and took through the House private Member's legislation for carers. This issue is close to his heart and it is also relevant to the debate on older people in Sutton, which I have been fortunate in securing today, because many of my constituents who are senior citizens at e also carers.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to report to the Chamber and the Minister on a project with older people that I have been undertaking in my constituency. Over the past 18 months, I have been working closely with a range of voluntary and statutory organisations to consult older people and devise a strategy for older people living in Sutton—the aim being to listen to them and devise a strategy reflecting their concerns. I was fortunate in working closely with the Sutton seniors forum and my local branch of Age Concern, whose input has been invaluable. The seniors forum, under the leadership of the chairman, David Dombey, meets every month and regularly attracts more than 200 senior citizens to its meetings, where the issues that are covered reflect the wide range of concerns and interests of older people in the London borough of Sutton.
Sutton borough Age Concern provides a range of services for older people there. One of the most important services that it has established lately is its users and carers group, which I shall mention in a minute—not least because it is made up of older people who have been trained to work with other older people to help them talk and out find out their views on services. That group's work has been valued by Sutton council and the Sutton and Merton primary care trust.
After a round of meetings in late 2002 with council leaders, the PCT, Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust chief executives, the local police borough commander and others, I felt that I had, in principle, a green light to start pulling together the strategy. I established a steering group with members drawn from the Sutton seniors forum, the users and carers group, Age Concern, local churches, the local authority social services department and community engagement teams, the local NHS change agency, and the older people's matron from Epsom and St. Helier, as well as a number of representatives from the PCT.
The group organised a conference that took place last July. More than 300 older people have taken part in the process, thereby contributing their ideas and time. On the day of the conference, 100 older people took part. The day was organised around a series of open questions, the aim being to create a climate in which everyone felt able to take part and contribute their ideas. There was a lot of brainstorming and small group work and people were asked to prioritise the issues that arose. A mass of good ideas came out during the day, including concerns about young people, policing and crime, and

481WH
the need for a more visible police presence to reassure and deter. Health and access to good-quality chiropody was flagged up, as was the need for more active healthy living initiatives to promote active ageing.
The need to reach out to find and offer support to isolated and lonely people was also raised. That echoes the research published yesterday by the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, which highlighted the terrible cost of isolation and loneliness in our community. The WRVS found that every year 12,000 older people in Britain die alone and undiscovered in their homes. That is the equivalent of 32 lonely deaths every day. It also found that 17 per cent. of older people living alone said that they were often always lonely, and one in seven said that they were isolated in their homes and felt cut off from the outside world. Some 20 per cent. of all suicides involve pensioners. That serious point was raised during the conference and warrants local and national attention.
Transport issues were raised, particularly the attitude of some—I emphasise some—bus drivers, a complaint that was echoed by many seasoned bus users during the conference. Their concern was the tendency to be too heavy on the throttle and too hard on the brake, causing many an injury and many upsets as a consequence.
Money matters and pensions issues were aired during the day. Participants felt hard pressed to make ends meet on fixed incomes. The No. 1 concern expressed was the feeling that those who had saved for their retirement were taxed twice—on their investment and the interest. The feeling was that thrift was no c rewarded. There was also a sense of frustration that the contribution that older people can and do make goes unrecognised—for example, the role that older people fulfil as carers, often undertaking many hours of care with no entitlement to the carer's allowance. How older people are stereotyped was also raised, and one example given during the conference was the signs that warn us about older people crossing the road and how offensive those signs are. The fact that they depict. An older person bent double with a stick is itself derogatory and insulting to many older people.
Perhaps one of the most positive things to come out of a positive day was the discussion about young people. It began with concerns about antisocial behaviour and calls for parents to control their children more. However, as the discussion progressed, the question was asked, "Why are the parents losing control? Who were the parents' parents?" They were the grandparents, who were at the conference. Although they had perfectly good relationships with their grandchildren and thought them wonderful, they did not know the other children or other young people on their streets, of whom they were fearful. As a consequence of that discussion, there was a strong feeling that work was perhaps needed in Sutton and elsewhere to develop a dialogue between young and old people to find common ground.
Shortly after our conference, at an event organised by Sutton council to ascertain local young people's views on a range of issues, it emerged that they experienced the same concerns about the attitudes of bus drivers, particularly the fact that they were too heavy on the accelerator, too hard on the brake and often too hard on them. The conference generated a mass of ideas, some sense of the priorities that should be taken forward and some of the first steps needed to develop them.
482WH
The next task for the steering group was to distil the day into a strategy that would form the basis of actions over the next few years. We took as our starting point the idea that people should not be defined by the services that they receive or by their illnesses or disabilities. They should be treated as people first. They have the right to be treated as equal and active partners by statutory and voluntary organisations in the borough. Before we can change the way in which services are delivered to older people, it is first necessary to change the way in which we think about older people.
The draft strategy has been written and contains six objectives. It is about securing wider ownership of the citizen-based approach that I have outlined; a sustained partnership between older people and statutory organisations; the promotion of a positive image of older people; a dialogue between older and younger people; the promotion of active ageing; and, above all, a joined-up approach to achieve a better quality of life for all older people.
The draft strategy is currently subject to consultation, and the feedback so far has been encouraging. The work on programmes such as the national service framework for older people, the Pension Service and the third age service provides a real opportunity to break out of the normal silos and adopt a more person-centred approach.
In Sutton, older people regularly make their voices heard through the seniors forum and through the work of the users and carers group. The Audit Commission's recent series of reports on the well-being of older people argued for the development of local older people's strategies. The commission points out that only 15 per cent. of older people receive care services, yet policies focus on the services to support the most vulnerable people in times of crisis. That neglects the needs of the wide range of older people who clearly aspire to an active and meaningful life.
To meet the needs of the ageing population, there should be a fundamental shift in approach to considering older people as citizens who are valuable resources rather than as dependants. To achieve that aim, the Audit Commission said that it will get local authorities to do five things. First, they should use their community leadership role to develop strategies locally. Secondly, they should have clear, committed leadership on issues relating to older people. Thirdly, they should involve and inform older people thoroughly. Fourthly, they should have good information on population trends. Fifthly, they should provide comprehensive ranges of services for older people and their carers.
Other organisations such as the national health service, voluntary organisations and the Pension Service should engage in older people strategies and undertake some of their investment planning within such frameworks. The commission will monitor all that in its performance assessment for 2005, so local authorities should be mindful of that over the coming years.
I want to ask the Minister a number of questions. Do the Government agree with the Audit Commission that such strategies provide a useful tool for shaping services around the needs of older people, and for thinking and acting outside the traditional service silos? Does he feel able to offer some encouragement to the partnership work that I have outlined this afternoon?

483WH
During the conference, concerns were expressed about incomes in old age, particularly but not exclusively those of women. I was grateful on the day that the Pension Service came along and participated in the event. It went away loaded with queries but it was a useful day for it, and it was helpful that it was there. There is a feeling that there is no point in saving because investment and interest are both taxed. Income plays an important part in the choices and independence that an older person can exercise. Does the Minister agree that the Pension Service has a part to play with statutory and voluntary agencies locally to develop programmes to maximise the take-up of the full range of benefits?
I referred to the stereotyping of older people. Ageism is a serious problem. It is a societal and institutional issue and action is required on a number of levels, one of which is legislation. What came across to me during the consultation is that if the scope of the age discrimination legislation that the Government are currently considering is limited to employment, it will fail to tackle the ageism that exists in the provision of public and private sector goods and services. What we really need, and what older people want, is comprehensive age discrimination legislation.
I want to end by expressing my appreciation to those who have made possible all the work that has been done locally. I thank McCarthy and Stone, Abbeyfield, Sutton police, Sutton and Merton PCT and others for their financial sponsorship of the conference. I thank Adrian Davey of the change agent team and Janet Finlay of the community engagement team for their excellent work in facilitating the day. I also thank Les Murrells and all the other members of the users and carers group who helped out on the day. I also appreciate the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on the day. The person I want to thank the most, because they did the most in organising the event and the work before and since is the head of my office, Ruth Dombey. She has worked incredibly hard and done an excellent job on behalf of my constituents
4.12 pm
The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I am pleased to be able to take part in this brief discussion of an important issue. Sometimes in Adjournment debates, the hon. Member who introduces it represents a constituency that one has never been to and would be hard-pressed to find on a map, whereas today I am talking about a neighbouring borough. I represent a Croydon constituency and I know Sutton well. St. Helier hospital has been mentioned. My wife works in a pathology laboratory there, so I have an understanding of the community that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) represents.
In answer to one question, I offer encouragement to the strategy that the hon. Gentleman is undertaking with colleagues in Sutton. I was interested to hear about the forum. He has been listening to local elderly people. If there were an opportunity for me to make the long trip from Croydon to Sutton, venturing those hundreds of yards across the border with my passport despite snow, hail and rain, I would be grateful to meet members of the forum and the professionals involved. Perhaps we could arrange that to happen in the coming months.
484WH
Although our Department is the Department for Work and Pensions, we have a lead responsibility in Whitehall for older people's issues. That does not mean that we run the national health service or the local community police, as the hon. Gentleman understands. However, we have that lead role, and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is the Cabinet champion for older people and chairs an important committee. We take that role very seriously.
The demographics of ageing and the ageing of our population are a formidable challenge. I have always regarded it as a challenge rather than a crisis, which some would suggest it is. Having said that, I am always somewhat hesitant in generalising about the needs of elderly people, because they come in all shapes and sizes, so to speak. That became clear to me recently when I visited a nursing home. The youngest resident was 60, and the oldest was 102. Although everyone in that community shared a need for nursing care, there was a wide age span.
Today, unlike 100 years ago, people's retirements may last 30 or more years. The average is probably 20 years. There is a danger of generalising, but one of the major themes of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was that we should not stereotype older people. We must recognise the commitment and contribution that our elders make to the community, as well as some of the more challenging issues of disability and dependency. We should not make the mistake of going to the other end of the continuum and talk about ageing in a romantic and positive way because fundamental issues are involved. Let us consider, for example, the scourge of Alzheimer's disease and the challenges that that poses to care agencies, the health service and the important army of carers, with which the hon. Gentleman, like me, is very involved.
Without our younger and sometimes not so young elderly population, what would be the position of the voluntary effort in our society? Many community and voluntary organisations in Sutton, Croydon and elsewhere are manned, or womaned, by younger elderly people. Many school governors are elderly people. Indeed, many carers are elderly people who often care for their elders, such as a young 60-something caring for a parent who is over the age of 90. We must recognise the contributions of older people not only in rhetoric but in practice.
There is not time to talk about everything that the Government want to do for older people, but I shall highlight one or two matters that are close to the theme of the debate. Our aim is to move towards—we are certainly not there yet—one-stop access to public services for older people. We want dedicated, integrated services, not only throughout the Government, but linked to voluntary organisations and, where appropriate, the private sector, including the utility companies. We are listening to older people and devising a strategy to shape public services positively to meet the wide and varied needs of 21st century senior citizens.
The Labour party's manifesto of 2001 included a commitment to
"build on Care Direct to provide integration of health, housing, benefits and social care for older people. This will be an integrated `third age service' to help older people".

485WH
I shall say more about Care Direct, later. We are making progress. We are working with partner organisations, Age Concern, Help the Aged and the better government for older people network, as well a other Government Departments to build the so-called third age service to meet older people's social and care needs. I say "so-called" third age service, because I do not believe that that term is readily discussed on the St. Helier estate or in Thornton Heath. We need a language to describe the service, which real people would understand fully. I used the phrase as shorthand.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we listen to older people. Key to the new approach are joint visiting teams that are built around local service and local authority staff with a single management structure. Joint teams are certainly one of the key building blocks for third age development. They provide a basis for wider engagement with other partners. Nine joint teams are up and running in the south-west, with more to become operational in other regions later this year.
I visited Taunton, Somerset, where Care Direct has really got off the ground. I saw joint teams in action. Local Pension Service people are working in the same team with the same management structure as staff from the local authority. One of them would visit an elderly person and be able to provide information and access to council or pension services. That is what I mean by a joint team approach.
In Somerset, a Care Direct number is being widely publicised. As with NHS Direct. the older person—or their carer, volunteer or whoever —can call that number and get not just information about the things that I have mentioned, such as benefits, pensions, housing and social services, but access to the relevant service. That is so important. That is a simple idea. How many of us, when we want to contact bits of the welfare state, struggle to remember how to do that, and the relevant local phone number? We would like that idea and the joint action teams to be developed.
On incomes, we are working with partners on pensioner poverty. We have designed what we call pension credit with the needs of older people in mind. That policy is now much easier to access. None of us likes filling in official forms; I am not very good at it, and elderly people do not particularly like doing it. With pension credit, if someone wants to apply through a form, they can do so. It is shorter than before and is written in plain English. However, if they do not want to fill in the form, they do not have to. They can ring a freephone number and apply for pension credit over the telephone. Our customer surveys show that elders like to do that. A 20-minute phone conversation will often deliver the pension credit. Yes, the form has to be checked and identification has to be proved for antifraud purposes but it is a much clearer approach to applying for pension credit.
I am pleased to say that, at this moment, about 2.6 million people are receiving pension credit. We reckon that, of those, 1.5 million are receiving more money through pension credit than they did under the old income support system. That is important.
Turning to Sutton and Cheam, only a few weeks ago, the Pension Service bus was parked on Sutton high street for a week. Staff from our local service were on
486WH
board, dealing with pension-related inquiries. On the first day alone, they saw 1 l 1 customers, helping them with queries about state pension forecasts, pension credit calculations and the rest.
One example might illustrate our approach. A lady—I will call her Mrs. G—visited the Pension Service bus in Sutton to see if she would be financially better off by claiming pension credit. She was in receipt of state pension, a small occupational pension and some savings. She was a home owner. When the member of staff conducted the entitlement check. it was estimated that Mrs. G would be entitled to more than £22 a week in pension credit. It was also found that she should be getting £18.75 council tax benefit. That is one example of a real success. That is more than £40 extra every week
Mrs. G completed the relevant application form with the assistance of staff, and has joined the 2,085 households in Sutton and Cheam who, so far—we are still rolling out pension credit—are in receipt of the credit. On average, they are receiving £44.75 a week. Other aspects of our policy are having a beneficial impact.
Mr. Burstow: The point that the Minister is making about the third age service and the arrival of the bus on Sutton high street is useful. Can he say a little more about the Government's intention to roll out the third age service? When might it be rolled out as far as Sutton and Cheam? Some of the benefits experienced in the west country that he outlined would be of interest to both his and my constituents.
Malcolm Wicks: One of the reasons why I was eager to take part in the debate is that the hon. Gentleman's approach to the issue is much the same as mine. There may not always be this Lib-Labery across the Croydon-Sutton boundary, by the way; I am not promising that this benevolence on my part will continue over the next 12 months. I can add only that I hope to say more about those issues during this calendar year. He should watch this space.
In Sutton and Cheam, there were more than 16,000 winter fuel payments last winter. We do not yet have the full figures for this winter. Of the payments for this year, 3,845 were made to people over 80. This winter, those people will have got the extra £100 for households with one person or more over the age of 80. I hope that that will be of interest to the people of Sutton and Cheam as the final snow flurries affect our boroughs.
It is important to recognise that alongside benefits there are many other important issues. The national service framework for older people is a 10-year plan to improve the quality of and access to health and social care services for older people. It includes specific standards on eliminating age discrimination, which is important, on promoting a healthy and active later life and on the improvement of services associated with ageing, strokes, falls and mental health care for older people. That is an important strategy, and we work closely with our colleagues on those issues. We must throw into the dustbin of health care history the notion that, just because one is of a certain age, a medical practitioner can say, "Well, what do you expect at your age?"

487WH
Increasingly, medical practitioners are treating a condition whatever a person's age and perhaps we need to progress that even further. That is vital in an ageing community. We recognise the importance of other services such as transport. We are blessed in London by the fact that our elderly people have access to public transport free of charge at certain times of the day; we are in a more beneficial situation than many other parts of the country.
From my conversations with older people, I know that antisocial behaviour—vandalism, petty crime—often makes them fearful about venturing out after a certain time, when it starts to get dark. The hon. Gentleman touched on that. All that we are doing to promote safer communities—putting more police officers on the beat and the rest—is important in relation to that problem.
We are about providing greater incomes in retirement, particularly targeted at the very elderly, who tend to be the poorest. Two out of three people receiving pension credit are women. Why is that? It is because they do not have the full national insurance contribution record due to past working patterns, having brought up
488WH
children and having cared for other people. They did not have access to the occupational pension. We are also promoting greater standards of care and well-being.
I and the Government are engaged in an agenda at local level about how to rebuild the welfare state—I include the voluntary sector in that—around the needs of older people and their families, rather than expecting older people somehow to negotiate what often seems a complex structure of local welfare services. It is important that the welfare state take the initiative in making itself more relevant to the older person.
Those are fine words perhaps. We must put them into practice by listening to older people, and hearing about their needs and their understanding of their local community, as the hon. Gentleman has done. We do practical things such as creating joint visiting teams and getting the local Pension Service, an excellent new development, to link up with the local council. We have one-stop shops and the one phone number. All those things will help us to translate good principle into decent social health and benefit practice
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Asbestos
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list the buildings occupied by his departmental and agency staff which require(a)remedial work on and (b)removal of asbestos; what this work will cost; what budgets are available for this work for (i) 2004 and (ii) 2005; and what budget is available for future asbestos surveys. [159651]

  Mr. Lammy
  My Department has 14 buildings that require remedial work and three buildings which require the removal of asbestos. These are:

  Remedial work

  Inner London Sessions House,

  Royal Courts of Justice,

  Technology and Construction Court,

  Bow County Court,

  Clerkenwell County Court,

  Romford County Court,

  Willesden County Court,

  Woolwich County Court,

  Ilford County Court,

  West London County Court,

  Edmonton County Court,

  Brentford County Court,

  Wandsworth County Court,

  Shoreditch County Court

  Removal work

  Epsom County Court,

  Swansea Crown Court (Guildhall),

  Selborne House

  The remedial works have a budget cost of £150,000 and the removal works a budget cost of £70,000. All remedial and removal works are scheduled to be completed by 31 March 2005. Future asbestos surveys will be funded from existing building maintenance budgets.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what proportion of buildings occupied by(a)staff of the Department and (b)staff of the Department's executive agencies have been surveyed for the purpose of identifying asbestos prior to the implementation of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. [159657]

  Mr. Lammy
  My Department will have had all of its HQ estate buildings surveyed for the purpose of identifying asbestos prior to the full implementation of the CAWR 2002. 72per cent. of the Court Service estate has been surveyed to date with the balance due to be completed in the financial year 2004–05.

  Costs Orders
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what rules are set out regarding costs orders in relation to cases involving children; and if he will make a statement. [158955]

  Mr. Leslie
  The approach to costs contained in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 now applies to all family proceedings, including private law proceedings relating to children. The court has discretion to make orders as to whether costs are payable by one party to another, and generally takes the approach that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay some or all of the costs of the successful party. The court may, however, make a different order and frequently will consider it appropriate to make no order for costs. In deciding what order, if any, to make about costs the court will consider all the circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the parties.

  Courts (London)
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what discussions he(a)has had and (b)plans to have with representatives of the Greater London Magistrates' Court Association about court provision across London in advance of the formation of the unified courts authority in 2004; and if he will make a statement. [159466]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have had discussions with representatives from the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority (GLMCA) about court provision across London on 15 July 2003. Presently I have no further meetings arranged but would be happy to do so if required. Officials from my Department working in the Unified Courts Administration Programme have regular discussions with both the acting Justices' Chief Executive and other senior managers of the GLMCA on all matters including court provision.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many speeches he made between 9 June 2003 and 1 February 2004; and where a copy of each speech can be obtained. [156152]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Ministerial Team at DCA made 84 policy speeches during this period. Those speeches where a transcript was available can be found on the DCA website at www.dca.gov.uk.

WALES

  Asbestos
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the buildings occupied by his staff which require(a)remedial work on and (b)removal of asbestos; what this work will cost; what budgets are available for this work for (i) 2004 and (ii) 2005; and what budget is available for future asbestos surveys. [159654]
  1489W
  Mr. Touhig
  A complete asbestos survey of the Wales Office was conducted in 2002. The Wales Office is now compliant with 2002 regulations and no further work is required.

  The cost of any future surveys or work required would be met from existing maintenance budgets.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of buildings occupied by his staff have been surveyed for the purpose of identifying the presence of asbestos prior to the implementation of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. [159659]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Wales Office arranged for a complete asbestos survey in 2002. Subsequently, all the recommendations of the survey have been undertaken, so the Wales Office is compliant with the 2002 regulations.

  Welsh Economy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a forecast for growth for the Welsh economy for the next three years. [157664]

  Mr. Hain
  Wales is seeing real economic growth, shown by increasing numbers of jobs; rising employment and falling unemployment; the third highest rise in earnings in Britain in 2002–03 and the progress made in closing the gap on economic inactivity.

  Furthermore, Welsh GDP grew by 15.6 per cent. between 1997 and 2001

  Based on this evidence and projections for UK growth Wales' economic growth seems set to continue in the future.

TRANSPORT

  Asbestos
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the buildings occupied by his Department's staff, including agencies, which require(a)remedial work on and (b)the removal of asbestos; what that work will cost; what budgets are available for this work for (i) 2004 and (ii) 2005; and what budget is available for future asbestos surveys; [159365]

  (2) what proportion of buildings occupied by (a)staff of the Department and (b)staff of the Department's executive agencies have been surveyed for the purpose of identifying the presence of asbestos prior to implementation of the control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. [159369]

  Mr. McNulty
  An updated list of the number of DfT properties identified as containing asbestos has been placed in the Libraries of the House. In terms of numbers of properties these represent some 20 per cent. of the total DfT estate but they mostly comprise small operational buildings.

  The responsibility for taking action to comply with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos Work Regulations 2002 are delegated to the managers of the individual property centres within the Department. The action taken will depend on the nature of the property
  1490W
  centres' occupancy of the buildings, whether or not asbestos has been found, where it is located and its quantity.

  Although there are a number of buildings which do contain asbestos it does not follow that it poses a risk to staff or visitors because risks vary according to the type of asbestos present and how it is managed. Where asbestos has been found its existence has been entered onto asbestos registers and specialist consultants or contractors handle its management or removal.

  Comprehensive information on the costs and budgets relating to asbestos surveys and works in each of the identified buildings and the nature of the works involved is not readily available without incurring disproportionate cost. However, we have identified that across the Department at least £204,500 has been allocated to be spent on remedial works and surveys during 2004–05.

  Rail Compensation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to change the compensation arrangements for rail passengers suffering(a)delays and (b)cancellations. [159593]

  Mr. McNulty
  Compensation for delays and cancellations to passengers will be paid under the conditions of each train operating company's Passengers Charter. In tendering for the renewal of franchises, the Strategic Rail Authority will ensure that the conditions of the train operator's Passengers Charter are subject to competitive pressure and will be taken into account in the franchise award evaluation criteria.

  Transport Spending
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the Government have spent to date on the spending commitments set out in the 10-year plan on(a)roads, broken down by (i) strategic, (ii) local and (iii) London (b)railways, (c)London Underground and (d)all other transport; and if he will make a statement. [158235]

  Mr. McNulty
  Tables A2 and A3 of the Department's 2003 Annual Report (Cm 5907) provide data on transport spending from funds within DfT's Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL). Spending on strategic roads is separately identified under 'Roads (includes Highways Agency)' whilst spending on local authority roads is included within the figures in the 'Transport in London' and 'Local Transport' lines. With the exception of funding for major road schemes in England out side London, it is a matter for local authorities to decide what proportion of their funding allocation is spent on roads. Outturn expenditure on local roads is published in the progress reports, accounts or other corporate documents of individual authorities but is not held centrally. Expenditure on railways, London Underground and other transport is separately identified in the Department's Annual Report.

  In addition to funding provided from DfT's DEL, local authorities receive revenue funding for transport through ODPM's Formula Spending Share (FSS) process. We estimate that authorities spent approximately £2.76 billion of their FSS allocation on transport in 2001–02 and £2.83 billion in 2002–03.

DEFENCE

  Continuous Attitudes Survey
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what questions concerning overstretch were asked in the 2003 editions of the Continuous Attitudes Survey for the(a)Royal Navy, (b)Army and (c)RAF; and if he will publish the answers; [160112]

  (2) what questions concerning equipment were asked in the 2003 editions of the Continuous Attitudes Survey for the (a)Royal Navy, (b)Army and (c)RAF; and if he will publish the answers; [160113]

  (3) what questions concerning contractualisation were asked in the 2003 editions of the Continuous Attitudes Survey for the (a)Royal Navy, (b)Army and (c)RAF; and if he will publish the answers; [160117]

  (4) what questions concerning nationality were asked in the 2003 editions of the Continuous Attitudes Survey for the (a)Royal Navy, (b)Army and (c)RAF; and if he will publish the answers. [160118]

  Mr. Caplin
  Copies of the questions asked in the Services' Continuous Attitude Surveys are available in the Library of the House.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many responses the Royal Navy Continuous Attitudes Survey received for the consultation round launched in September 2003; and if he will make a statement. [160114]

  Mr. Caplin
  In September 2003 the administration for the Royal Navy Continuous Attitude Survey (CAS) recorded the following: 2,000 Questionnaires were distributed, 107 were returned 'addressee unknown' and 946 were returned completed.

  In September 2003 the administration for the Royal Marines CAS recorded the following: 1,027 Questionnaires were distributed. 23 were returned 'addressee unknown' and 409 were returned completed.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many responses the Army Continuous Attitudes Survey received for the consultation round launched in December 2003; and if he will make a statement. [160115]

  Mr. Caplin
  The latest Army Serving Personnel Continuous Attitude Survey was distributed in December 2003 to 5,040 individuals. As at 4 March, 2,168 responses had been received.

  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which(a)Ministers and (b)officials in his Department had meetings in the last nine months with BAE personnel to discuss the order for the Second Tranche of Eurofighter Typhoons; when the meetings took place; who attended; and what representations he has received from the other partners in this project on the ordering of Tranche II. [159497]

  Mr. Hoon
  Ministers and officials have had many meetings with BAE Systems personnel in the last nine months at which the order for the second Tranche of Typhoons has been discussed. Regular meetings have 1492W
  also taken place with our partner nations in the project as part of the ongoing commercial and international negotiations on the same subject.

  Forces (Overseas Postings)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a)regular service and (b)Territorial Army personnel are serving overseas. [157851]

  Mr. Caplin
  Some 36,000 British service personnel are serving overseas, including some 1,200 members of the Territorial Army.

  Gulf War Illness
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 23 February 2004,Official Report,columns 11–12W, to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), on Gulf War illness, if he will publish a description of the monitoring tests for depleted uranium to which he refers. [158259]

  Mr. Caplin
  The tests involve chemical processing of urine samples and analysis using inductive coupled plasma mass spectrometry. This reveals both the total concentration of uranium in the urine and the relative amounts of its two principal isotopes, 238U and 235U. The Depleted Uranium Oversight Board has judged that, taking into account experimental uncertainty, a 238U/235U ratio of 142 or higher indicates the presence of depleted uranium. A pilot exercise will soon be underway to evaluate the logistic arrangements for the testing process and to establish whether urine samples collected over a 24-hour period or single ("spot") samples are more appropriate. If reliable results can be obtained from spot samples, they will be used for the main testing programme as they are more convenient for the donor.

  Military Bases (Contamination)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been commissioned by his Department into(a)the degree of contamination and (b)the prospects for remedial action at military bases in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) dependent territories abroad. [158903]

  Mr. Caplin
  To date, over 500 Land Quality Assessments (LQA) have been prepared across the Defence estate since 1995 to identify the degree and extent of contaminated land, predominantly in the United Kingdom, but also in dependent territories such as Gibraltar and Cyprus. LQA identify potentially contaminative site activities. Studies are prioritised, e.g. on sites in proximity to vulnerable aquifers, or where contamination is known or suspected. This process determines remedial options.

  Current Ministry of Defence policy is to undertake remediation of contaminated land where there is significant risk to human health or the environment and it is practical or necessary to remove all contamination from a site. This may be confined to the removal of radioactive contamination or other defence specific contaminants, wherein the MOD's environmental specialists (or specialist consultants) and the environmental regulators work closely together to establish the extent to which the land is to be decontaminated.
  1493W
  The MOD seeks to ensure compliance with relevant statutory environmental provisions and any additional requirements arising from international treaties and protocols to which the UK is a signatory. Overseas, the Department will apply UK standards where reasonably practicable and, in addition, comply with host nation standards. This ensures resources are used efficiently and land is being managed in the best interests of good environmental performance and sustainable development.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what studies his Department has commissioned on the levels of(a)toxic and (b)other pollution at military bases in the UK; and what publications his Department has issued in this respect since May 1997; [158904]

  (2) how many locations there are where there is recorded contamination (a)at and (b)from military bases, broken down by (i) location, (ii) nature of contamination, (iii) remedial works taken or planned and (iv) the financial cost of contamination; and if he will make a statement. [158905]

  Mr. Caplin
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Recruitment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of recruitment of civil servants for the Department was in each financial year since 1996–97, broken down by(a)delegated or contracted out recruitment procedures and (b)recruitment procedures carried out by the Department. [158195]

  Mr. Caplin
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

INTERNATIONAL DEVEOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps his Department is taking to work with the governments of(a)Kazakhstan, (b)Turkmenistan, (c)Tajikistan and (d)Pakistan to stabilise wheat prices in Afghanistan; and what assessment he has made of the impact of wheat prices on stability within Afghanistan. [159503]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  We are working with the Afghan Government to assist them to build good relationships with all their neighbouring countries on a range of issues. To this end the Good Neighbourly Relations Declaration was signed in December 2002 between the Afghan Government and the six countries with which they share a common border. Discussions within this group encompass a range of issues, including trade.

  Since the fall of the Taliban the cost of wheat in Afghanistan has fallen, partly due to aid agencies bringing in much needed food aid but also as a result of the break in the drought, which led to an 80 per cent., increase in the harvest. Discussions took place last year between my department, the Afghan Government and the aid agencies regarding the impact of wheat prices on the country. At that time it was noted that local purchase of wheat by aid agencies would increase its
  1494W
  price and while this might have a positive impact for farmers it would also increase the market price for ordinary Afghans. The outcome of the discussions was a plan for WFP to procure 10,000 metric tons of wheat locally in 2004.

  Bilateral Aid
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much bilateral aid the UK gave to(a)Armenia, (b)Azerbaijan and (c)Georgia in 2003. [160082]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The UK gave the following bilateral aid in 2003:

  (a)Armenia: £1,933,221

  (b)Azerbaijan: £182,730

  (c)Georgia: £2,092,989

  Burundi
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures are being taken to reduce the use of child soldiers in Burundi. [159040]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The UK condemns unequivocally the use of child soldiers. We work closely with others in the international community including the UN to end the use of child soldiers. This includes support for a UNICEF programme to improve advocacy on the situation of children affected by armed conflict at all levels. The UK is also supporting a UN Security Council resolution on Children and Armed Conflict (currently under discussion) which calls on all parties to, inter alia, produce time-bound action plans to halt the recruitment and use of children in armed conflict.

  We are working actively within the international community to achieve a full peace settlement in Burundi and the implementation of a comprehensive disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration programme. We have committed US $25 million for the Multi-Country Demobilisation and Reintegration Programme for the Great Lakes Region. A national child soldier reintegration project has begun to implement activities and to date 400 child soldiers have been demobilised. Funds from this will be used in Burundi for a special project managed by UNICEF to demobilise child soldiers and reintegrate them into their home communities.

  Commission for Africa
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what payment will be made to those who will sit on the Commission for Africa; and how this will be funded. [159380]

  Hilary Benn
  Commissioners will not receive payment for sitting on the Commission for Africa. Travel and subsistence costs incurred on Commission work will be reimbursed from the budget allocated to the Commission by the Department for International Development.

  Jamaica
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how in much aid was given by the Government to Jamaica in each year since 1992, expressed in real terms. [159751]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  UK bilateral aid provided to Jamaica since 1992 is as follows:

  (Real terms 2002–03 = 100.00 total gross public expenditure)

  £ million

  1992–93

  6.395

  1993–94

  7.959

  1994–95

  4.213

  1995–96

  12.042

  1996–97

  11.215

  1997–98

  3.573

  1998–99

  11.130

  1999–2000

  9.710

  2000–01

  8.945

  2001–02

  9.263

  2002–03

  10.708

  The UK also provided aid to Jamaica through the multilateral agencies over this period. The imputed multilateral share is as follows:

  £ million

  1992

  1.0

  1993

  0.3

  1994

  3.7

  1995

  4.1

  1996

  6.2

  1997

  7.6

  1998

  9.9

  1999

  0.0

  2000

  4.5

  2001

  5.1

  Uzbekistan
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress Uzbekistan has made towards meeting the human rights goals set out by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. [159845]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is currently reviewing Uzbekistan's progress towards seven benchmarks for political and economic reform set out in the EBRD Strategy for Uzbekistan of March 2003. These include provisions in the area of human rights.

  A mission of EBRD Directors recently visited Uzbekistan to review developments. They held discussions with the government, local and international NGOs, donors, local business and diplomatic community. The mission noted that some progress has been made on human rights, but much remains to be done. Detailed conclusions from the mission and the next steps for EBRD will be discussed by the full Board later this month.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Common Funding Formula
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Common Funding Formula will be introduced; what the reasons are for the delay in introducing it; and if he will make a statement. [157454]

  Jane Kennedy
  Following consultation with schools, which will be undertaken within the next few months, we aim to implement the Common Funding Formula in April 2005.

  The decision to delay the implementation date for the introduction of new arrangements for funding schools was taken after very careful consideration of the issues and in particular the need to ensure that schools have sufficient opportunity to comment on the proposed outcomes. The consultation was due to commence in autumn 2003 but delays, including those related to the collation of verified data needed for this process, meant this would have provided very little time not only for schools to consider the details for this major change in schools funding but also for any issues arising to be fully considered.

  The revised timetable offers the opportunity to take account of refinements needed as a result of the consultation process and of any changes which may be necessary in the future as a result of recommendations made by the Post-Primary Review Working Group and also the CCEA Review of the Curriculum.

  Fencing
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether(a)Lottery money and (b)public funds have been used, directly or indirectly, to send fencers representing the Republic of Ireland to (i) competitions in (A) Italy and (B) Germany, (ii) world championships and (iii) training camps in Eastern Europe. [158318]

  Angela Smith
  Both(a)Lottery money and (b)public funds, have been used to fund fencers who have represented the Republic of Ireland in (i) competitions in (A) Italy and (B) Germany, (ii) world championships and (iii) training camps in Eastern Europe.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding the sport of fencing has received in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [158319]

  Angela Smith
  The sport of fencing has received the following Exchequer funding:

  £

  1999–2000

  3,500

  2000–01

  3,500

  2001–02

  3,500

  2002–03

  7,525

  2003–04

  14,300

  1497W
  The sport of fencing has received the following Lottery funding:

  £

  1999–2000

  18,000

  2000–01

  67,320

  2001–02

  9,720

  2002–03

  8,080

  2003–04

  14,240

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fencers are on the Talented Athlete Next Generation programme in Northern Ireland. [158320]

  Angela Smith
  There are five fencers on the Talented Athlete Next Generation Programme.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fencers from Northern Ireland in receipt of United Kingdom Talented Athlete Funding have competed for a country other than the United Kingdom. [158321]

  Angela Smith
  There are no fencers in receipt of United Kingdom Talented Athlete funding that have competed for a country other than the United Kingdom.

  Funding
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much(a)lottery funding and (b)public funds have been allocated to Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [158322]

  Angela Smith
  The Sports Council is responsible for the distribution of funding for sport in Northern Ireland. The total amount of(a)public funds and (b)lottery funding allocated by the Sports Council in each of the last five years is as follows:

  £

  Public funds

  1999–2000

  2,406,970

  2000–01

  4,423,988

  2001–02

  3,536,324

  2002–03

  5,276,074

  2003–041

  7,472,075

  Total

  23,115,431

  Lottery Funding

  1999–2000

  7,218,436

  2000–01

  7,585,022

  2001–02

  8,254,768

  2002–03

  7,300,142

  2003–042

  5,111,326

  Total

  35,469,694

  1Estimated to 31 March 2004

  21 April 2003 to 31 January 2004

  Manufacturing (De-rating)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact the phasing out of de-rating on manufacturing 1498W
  industries will have on (a)revenue, (b)profitability, (c)costs and (d)employment within the industry; and if he will make a statement. [157272]

  Mr. Pearson
  Our assessment on the likely impact of the phasing out of industrial de-rating on the manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland (NI) came from a variety of different sources; for example, studies by DTZ Pieda, Invest NI as well as evidence presented during the public consultation exercise in 2002 by the Enterprise, Trade and Investment and Finance and Personnel Assembly Committees, the CBI and local economists. The policy paper published in April last year included the Regulatory Impact Assessment, New TSN and Equality Impact Assessments. All this evidence was summarised, analysed and considered objectively and the various options were discussed openly with representatives of the business community before a final decision was made.

  In terms of revenue, the estimated long-term yield from the rating of the manufacturing sector is around £55 million a year and I refer you to my earlier answer of 23 February 2004, Official Report,column 165W, for fuller detail.

  In relation to the specific impact on profitability, costs and employment within the industry, a sudden withdrawal of de-rating could have a potentially detrimental impact on manufacturing business and this is why it is proposed to phase the removal of industrial de-rating from 1 April 2005 with businesses not paying full rates until April 2011. This lengthy phasing out period should ensure that no sustainable jobs are lost. Furthermore, the intention to introduce a hardship scheme that will apply to all businesses where exceptional circumstances exist and work on Government proposals to reduce electricity costs for business are further mitigating measures which will help manufacturing absorb the removal of de-rating.

  Money Advice
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken by the(a)Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and (b)Department of Social Development to modernise the provision of Money Advice; and if he will make a statement. [157271]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Consumer Strategy for Northern Ireland was published in March 2002. As a result, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment commissioned research into the provision of a suitable framework for the delivery of effective money advice in Northern Ireland. This is now being taken forward within the context of the Department for Social Development's Information and Advice strategy, which is scheduled to be published for consultation in May 2004.

  Senior Civil Servant Pay
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the percentage pay award to Northern Ireland senior civil servants was which came into effect on 1 April 2003. [158634]
  1499W
  Mr. Pearson
  The 2003 increase in pay bill cost for Senior Civil Servants in the 11 Departments of the Northern Ireland Administration was 5.37 per cent. The amount received by an individual depended on performance ranking and position on the payband. A separate pay system exists for the Senior Civil Service with increases made on the basis of recommendations made by the independent Senior Salaries Review Body. Unlike other staff groups the Senior Civil Service pay award process does not involve negotiations with trade unions.

  Sunbeds
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many public leisure facilities in Northern Ireland are equipped with sunbeds; what his Department's policy is on the provision of sunbeds in public leisure facilities in Northern Ireland; and what plans he has to phase out the use of sunbeds in public leisure facilities in Northern Ireland. [156949]

  Angela Smith
  There is no central register of facilities, including sunbeds, provided at public leisure centres and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  District councils have statutory responsibility for the provision of facilities for recreational, social, physical and cultural activities in their areas. The decision whether or not to provide sunbeds in public leisure centres is a matter for each council.

  Ulster Scots
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what margin of error is applied in Northern Ireland to measure demand for Ulster Scots. [159539]

  Angela Smith
  The 1999 Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey (NILT) sought to identify the percentage of the Northern Ireland population that spoke Ulster Scots. The questions used in this survey have a margin of error for all sample estimates within the parameters of ±3 per cent.

  An example is shown as follows:

  (%) speak Ulster Scots

  Standard error of (%)

  95% Confidence limits

  All

  2.0

  0.30

  1.4–2.6

  Gender

  Men

  2.7

  0.56

  1.6–3.8

  Women

  1.4

  0.28

  0.9–1.9

  Age

  18–24

  0.8

  0.64

  0–2.1

  25–34

  1.6

  0.67

  0.3–2.9

  35–44

  2.0

  0.66

  0.7–3.3

  45–54

  2.0

  0.75

  0.5–3.5

  55–64

  1.7

  0.82

  0.1–3.3

  65+

  2.9

  0.83

  1.3–4.5

  Religion

  Catholics

  1.2

  0.35

  0.5–1.9

  Protestants

  2.1

  0.43

  1.3–2.9

  No religion

  3.4

  1.19

  1.1–5.7

  1500W
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many attitudinal surveys he has received from bodies other than the Department of Education to measure the demand for the Ulster Scots language and culture in Northern Ireland; and from whom. [159561]

  Angela Smith
  I am aware of three exercises that have been carried out that might be termed attitudinal surveys to measure the demand for Ulster-Scots. These are:Questions in the 1999 Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey (NILT),
  Questions in the 2000 and 2001 Omnibus survey (RES) and
  A research report undertaken in 2002 by Dunne, Dawson and Morgan.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Licensing Authorities
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list for each licensing authority in England(a)the cost of and (b)the expenditure on liquor and entertainment licensing in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and for each prospective licensing authority and for England what estimate she has made of the annual (i) cost of and (ii) income from liquor and entertainment licensing after implementation of the Licensing Act 2003. [159876]

  Mr. Caborn
  No figures are kept centrally for the annual cost of, and the annual expenditure on, liquor and entertainment licensing by local authority area. Local authorities have no current responsibility for liquor licensing and fee income goes to the courts. The new arrangements under the Licensing Act 2003 will integrate six existing licensing regimes: liquor, public entertainment, theatre, cinema, late night refreshment and night cafe licensing. We estimate that the income from all these regimes collectively is about £36.8 million annually for England and Wales, if renewal fee income is spread across the period of the renewal (which varies). We estimate that the actual cost of the six regimes to the courts and local authorities involved is approximately £69.3 million annually. Estimates of future expenditure under the new arrangements set out in the Licensing Act 2003 are currently being considered. No final decisions have yet been taken about fee levels and these will affect total income. Fee levels will be set so as to permit full recovery of the costs of administration, inspection and enforcement associated with the licensing regime.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the timetable is for the transfer of licensing powers from magistrates to local authorities; when she intends to publish national guidance relating to the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003; and if she will make a statement. [159989]

  Mr. Caborn
  We will be laying the draft Guidance before both Houses for approval shortly. The start of
  1501W
  the transitional period, during which existing licence holders may apply to the licensing authorities to convert their existing licences to new premises licences and club premises certificates, is expected to be approximately six months after the date on which Parliament approves the Guidance. During this period of six months, licensing authorities will prepare and publish their statements of licensing policy. The transitional period is expected to last for nine months and, as a result, the Licensing Act is expected to be fully implemented by mid 2005.

  £ million

  Nature of scheme

  PFI credits allocated

  Recipient authorities

  Community facilities (as part of wider schools projects, e.g. leisure facilities, theatre, library)

  126.594

  Sheffield borough council, Liverpool City council, Telford and Wrekin borough council, Croydon (London borough), South Tyneside council

  Sports/Leisure

  60.097

  Brent council, Wolverhampton City council, Redbridge (London borough), Shepway district council, Rotherham borough council

  Libraries/Archives

  67.277

  Oldham borough council, Cambridgeshire district council, Newcastle City council, Liverpool City council, Rochdale borough council

  Theatre

  9.8

  Bournemouth borough council

  Total

  2163.768

  16 PFI schemes

  1All joint funded with DfES.

  2This figure is higher than £150 million PFI credits allocated within the 2003–04 to 2005–06 spending review as some additional credits were rolled over from the previous financial year. These were not allocated to one scheme in particular but were added to the overall sum available for allocation to new schemes during the 2003–04 to 2005–06 spending review.

  School Sports
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans her Department has to issue joint guidance with the Department for Education and Skills on the ideal specification for sports facilities for a secondary school. [159952]

  Mr. Caborn
  At present, Sport England publishes detailed guidance on developing sports facilities on school sites. The guidance deals with the inception, construction, and management of these facilities.

  The Department will continue to work closely with the Department for Education and Skills and Sport England to consider what further steps should be taken to ensure that secondary schools are given appropriate guidance on the provision of sports facilities.

  Village Halls
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding was given to village halls by the National Lottery in each year since its inception. [159676]

  Grants awarded by the Community Fund to projects involving community building

  Applications

  Amount requested (£)

  Awards

  Amount awarded (£)

  Success rate (Percentage)

  1995–96

  250

  11,983,973.00

  31

  1,194,336.00

  12

  1996–97

  230

  11,552,453.00

  23

  1,013,664.00

  10

  1997–98

  702

  60,412,623.00

  175

  9,266,546.00

  25

  1998–99

  503

  42,409,794.00

  314

  23,993,258.00

  62

  1999–2000

  523

  56,379,485.00

  306

  27,828,022.00

  59

  2000–01

  497

  66,603,473.00

  196

  21,292,221.00

  39

  2001–02

  435

  59,909,111.00

  158

  17,085,082.00

  36

  2002–03

  457

  58,776,770.00

  142

  14,420,027.00

  31

  2003-

  179

  39,278,168.00

  64

  5,850,851.00

  36

  Total

  3,776

  407,305,850.00

  1,409

  121,944,007.00

  37

  Awards for all

  4,510

  17,202,623.00

  3,100

  11,763,805.00

  69

  Grand total

  8,286

  424,508,473.00

  4,509

  133,707,812.00

  54

  1502W

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how her Department's £150 million of PFI credits for the spending review period 2003–04 to 2005–06 are being allocated. [159951]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS is using its allocation of £150 million PFI credits for the spending review of 2003–04 to 2005–06 to support 16 PFI schemes in the following areas:

  Estelle Morris
  Since the introduction of the 1998 Lottery Act and changes to policy directions, we have encouraged distributors to work together to make Lottery funding more accessible and to support projects aimed at developing communities. Village halls and other community buildings encourage community spirit and help ensure the survival of many local interest groups.

  There is currently no specific funding strand for village halls although many community buildings have benefited from National Lottery grants. The Community Fund is the main Lottery funder of community buildings and the following table shows the awards it has granted to community buildings since the start of the Lottery. In a stand alone programme, the Millennium Commission also awarded over £65.8 million to village halls and a breakdown is shown in the second table below. (This figure does not include urban community centres and includes the monies given to village halls as enhancement grants in 2003.) Other Lottery distributors have also awarded grants to village halls although these figures cannot be separately identified and displayed.
  1503W

  Grants awarded by the Millennium Commission to village hall projects

  £

  1995

  6,583,774

  1996

  35,390,498

  1997

  21,046,235

  1998

  1,431,924

  Subtotal

  64,452,431

  2003

  1,426,648

  Grand total

  65,879,079

  Websites
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total annual cost of her Department's websites, including those of its agencies, was in the most recent year for which figures are available. [159517]

  Mr. Caborn
  The total annual cost in 2003–04, covering all 12 of the Department's websites and that of the Royal Parks Agency, was £62,000 including VAT.

  Westminster Hall
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy to have senior Ministers reply to debates in Westminster Hall. [159612]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on 8 March 2004,Official Report, column 1234W.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Link
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 27 February 2004,Official Report, column 588W, on Business Link, what the value is of the contracts offered by the Small Business Service to (a)BL Derbyshire, (b)BL Tees Valley and (c)BL Bedfordshire; and if she will make a statement. [158878]

  Mr. Timms
  The value of the Business Link Operator (BLO) Core Service Funding allocation for 2003–04 is as follows.

  VAT registrations

  Number

  Rate per 10,000 resident adults

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2000

  2001

  2002

  United Kingdom

  184,035

  174,620

  175,800

  39

  37

  37

  London

  37,760

  34,385

  33,490

  67

  59

  57

  Inner London

  20,955

  18,820

  18,195

  96

  82

  78

  City of London

  1,460

  1,110

  1,015

  2,345

  1,653

  1,428

  Camden

  2,260

  1,910

  1,910

  142

  112

  110

  Hackney

  1,230

  1,035

  1,025

  81

  65

  63

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,250

  1,205

  1,100

  94

  85

  75

  Haringey

  985

  910

  840

  58

  51

  46

  1504W

  £

  BL Derbyshire

  2,502,742

  BL Tees Valley

  1,460,480

  BL Bedfordshire

  1,515,800

  I have nothing further to add to my hon. Friend's answer of 27 February 2004, Official Report,column 588W.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to make available the independent audit reports of Business Link operators. [157225]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The independent audit reports of Business Link Operators are commercially restricted.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Business Link Operators have been required to undergo a business performance review. [157226]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Further to the five Business Link Operators named given to the hon. Member on 27 February 2004,Official Report,columns 588–89W, the following Business Link Operators have also been required to undergo a Business Performance Review:
  BL Leicestershire
  BL Northamptonshire Chamber Business Enterprise (Manchester)
  BL South Yorkshire.

  Business Statistics
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new businesses have been registered in(a)London and (b)Wales, broken down by local authority, in each of the past three years. [158037]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 3 March 2004]:The official measure of business start-up activity in the UK is VAT registrations. However, businesses are unlikely to be registered if they fall below the compulsory VAT threshold which has risen in each year since 1997. Only 1.8 million out of the estimated 3.8 million enterprises in the UK were registered for VAT in 2002.

  Value Added Tax (VAT) registration data are available up to 2002. Data for 2003 will not be available until autumn 2004.

  VAT registration rates per 10,000 resident adults (aged 16 and over) are shown to allow fair comparisons between areas. The numbers and rates of business registering for VAT in each London borough and Welsh unitary authority, in each calendar year are as follows:
  1505W

  VAT registrations

  Number

  Rate per 10,000 resident adults

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Islington

  1,380

  1,245

  1,230

  97

  84

  82

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,330

  1,025

  1,095

  105

  74

  78

  Lambeth

  920

  895

  925

  43

  40

  42

  Lewisham

  640

  640

  575

  33

  32

  28

  Newham

  605

  580

  550

  34

  31

  29

  Southwark

  1,135

  1,110

  975

  59

  55

  48

  Tower Hamlets

  1,115

  1,025

  1,005

  75

  65

  62

  Wandsworth

  1,200

  1,200

  1,180

  56

  53

  52

  Westminster

  5,455

  4,925

  4,775

  360

  304

  288

  Outer London

  16,415

  15,420

  15,270

  47

  43

  43

  Barking and Dagenham

  390

  365

  335

  31

  29

  26

  Barnet

  1,865

  1,540

  1,515

  76

  60

  59

  Bexley

  600

  620

  545

  35

  36

  31

  Brent

  1,205

  1,125

  1,040

  59

  52

  47

  Bromley

  960

  970

  955

  41

  41

  40

  Croydon

  1,005

  985

  1,000

  39

  37

  38

  Ealing

  1,250

  1,205

  1,195

  53

  49

  48

  Enfield

  900

  820

  875

  42

  37

  39

  Greenwich

  545

  510

  510

  33

  30

  29

  Harrow

  935

  905

  930

  57

  54

  55

  Havering

  640

  640

  615

  36

  36

  34

  Hillingdon

  875

  760

  840

  46

  39

  43

  Hounslow

  820

  880

  825

  49

  51

  47

  Kingston upon Thames

  620

  580

  560

  53

  48

  46

  Merton

  780

  685

  615

  52

  44

  39

  Redbridge

  860

  760

  725

  46

  40

  38

  Richmond upon Thames

  995

  920

  1,010

  72

  65

  71

  Sutton

  510

  525

  510

  36

  36

  36

  Waltham Forest

  665

  625

  660

  39

  36

  37

  Wales

  6,310

  5,985

  6,110

  27

  26

  26

  Isle of Anglesey

  125

  125

  135

  23

  23

  25

  Gwynedd

  290

  260

  285

  31

  28

  30

  Conwy

  265

  230

  240

  30

  26

  27

  Denbighshire

  205

  220

  200

  28

  29

  26

  Flintshire

  345

  330

  365

  29

  28

  31

  Wrexham

  255

  235

  240

  25

  23

  23

  Powys

  420

  360

  390

  41

  35

  38

  Ceredigion

  170

  185

  185

  27

  30

  29

  Pembrokeshire

  305

  270

  270

  34

  30

  30

  Carmarthenshire

  405

  370

  420

  29

  26

  30

  Swansea

  450

  475

  430

  25

  26

  24

  Neath Port Talbot

  190

  200

  195

  18

  19

  18

  Bridgend

  250

  255

  235

  25

  25

  23

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  285

  235

  310

  30

  25

  33

  Cardiff

  800

  775

  790

  33

  32

  32

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  355

  350

  355

  19

  19

  19

  Merthyr Tydfil

  75

  70

  55

  17

  16

  12

  Caerphilly

  240

  250

  265

  18

  19

  20

  Blaenau Gwent

  90

  70

  75

  16

  13

  14

  Torfaen

  150

  140

  120

  21

  20

  17

  Monmouthshire

  270

  275

  260

  40

  40

  38

  Newport

  305

  290

  275

  29

  27

  25

  Source:

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

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has made to the US Administration about(a)requirements to produce US defense equipment in the USA, (b)restrictions on foreign content in defence exports with military sales support, (c)technology export controls and (d)limits on control of US subsidiaries by UK companies; and what the outcome of such representations has been. [157050]
  1506W
  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  Ministerial colleagues and I expressed concerns last year about legislative proposals before Congress to impose further restrictions on overseas procurements to meet the United States' defense requirements. The legislation subsequently enacted did not include the proposals of most concern to us. Steps are regularly taken to press the case for United Kingdom companies to receive fair access to programmes for the supply of US-sourced equipment for third parties under foreign

  1507W
  military sales arrangements. The licensing of US technology for export to the UK has been discussed with the US Administration in the Context of proposals for a UK waiver from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

  On this I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 18 December 2003, Official Report, column 1066W. The matter of controls on foreign investment in the US has recently been raised with the US Administration by DTI Ministers. The Administration has given reassurances that the US would take proper account of the UK/US relationship in their case-by-case consideration.

  Iraq
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 54W, on Iraqi oil, if she will list, by month, (a)the volume of Iraqi oil sold since May 2003, (b)the amount paid for the oil and (c)the amount received by the Development Fund for Iraq; and if she will make a statement. [158145]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 March 2004]:Information on the amount of Iraqi oil produced each month is given in Table 1 as follows. Information on the amount paid for the oil is not publicly available. As of 4 March 2004, US $6.15 billion of oil proceeds had been received by the Development Fund for Iraq. This information is available through the CPA website at www.cpa-iraq.org/budget/DFI_introl.html

  Table 1: Iraqi oil production

  Million barrels per day

  Net production1

  May 2003

  0.28

  June 2003

  0.44

  July 2003

  0.70

  August 2003

  1.11

  September 2003

  1.41

  October 2003

  1.58

  November 2003

  1.92

  December 2003

  1.97

  January 2004

  2.04

  1Estimated Iraqi oil supply net of re-injected crude oil.

  Source:

  International Energy Agency

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 23 February 2004,Official Report,column 54W, on Iraqi oil, on what basis Iraqi oil has been sold other than on a spot basis; to whom the oil has been sold; and if she will make a statement. [158146]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 March 2004]:Iraqi oil is sold by two other means, in addition to that sold on a spot basis.

  The first is through tendered cargoes by which "parcels" of crude are advertised for sale and for which sealed priced bids are made. The second is through long-term agreements whereby certain regular buyers of Iraqi oil agree to buy a given volume of Iraqi oil at a pre-agreed sale price. These buyers may also be offered additional volumes at the same price should there be excess production.
  1508W
  The Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organisation (SOMO) is responsible for the sale of oil on behalf of the Ministry of Oil.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many contracts for reconstruction projects in Iraq have been awarded to each British company to have won such a contract; and what the total value is of such contracts. [159003]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Because of the large number of different organisations involved it has become increasingly difficult to maintain a clear picture of the total volume of contracts awarded, and the cumulative value of these contracts. Numerous British companies have been awarded contracts and sub-contracts for the reconstruction process in Iraq but some have asked us not to publicise their success because of issues of commercial confidentiality. As such, we are not able to put a value on the contracts awarded and the fact that many are involved in partnership with American, Iraqi and other companies.

  Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what relationship she envisages between the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Nirex. [159023]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has announced that the Government are giving consideration to the future of Nirex. It will only be possible to set out definitively the relationship between Nirex and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority once this consideration has been completed.

  Regional Venture Capital Funds
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action her Department is taking to attract corporate investment in regional venture capital funds. [157210]

  Mr. Timms
  In order to enable Fund Managers to attract private sector investors, the Government subordinated its investment position in the Regional Venture Capital Funds (RVCFs). This has allowed around £74 million of Government investment to lever an additional £176 million from private sector investors, some of whom were corporate investors.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 12 February 2004,Official Report,column 1628W, to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on the Regional Venture Capital Fund, what the regional breakdown by (a)number and (b)value is of the regional venture capital fund investments; and what proportion of the funds have been drawn down in each region. [157000]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As at 31 January 2004, the nine Regional Venture Capital Funds had made 112 investments in 87 small businesses, totalling over £21 million. Details of the numbers of investments made in each region are contained in the table.
  1509W

  £

  Total investments

  RVCF

  Number

  Amount

  Total fund size

  DTI investment commitment

  Drawn down from DTI as at 31 January 2004

  London

  10

  2,250,000

  50,000,000

  15,000,000

  2,950,000

  East Midlands

  19

  3,245,047

  30,000,000

  9,000,000

  3,650,000

  North East

  23

  3,321,882

  15,000,000

  4,500,000

  4,200,000

  West Midlands

  11

  1,720,000

  20,000,000

  6,000,000

  1,850,000

  South West

  4

  1,000,000

  25,000,000

  7,500,000

  1,000,000

  Yorkshire and Humber

  4

  1,000,000

  25,000,000

  10,000,000

  1,050,000

  South East

  27

  6,100,000

  30,000,000

  7,500,000

  7,050,000

  North West

  14

  2,446,333

  35,500,000

  8,875,000

  4,187,500

  East of England

  0

  0

  20,000,000

  6,000,000

  600,000

  Spam E-mails
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she plans to help those who receive spam to block spam e-mails from their systems. [159749]

  Mr. Timms
  Effective blocking and filtering are a key part of the solution to spam. My Department is looking at ways of building up a stronger dialogue with internet service providers and other stakeholders about the deployment of network based spam blocking and filtering systems, and the education of users about the steps they can take to avoid spam. 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, including spam, 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.

  The Government believe that the problem of spam needs to be tackled in the longer term by a combination of regulation, international cooperation, industry

  L/A/Financial year

  Number of offers

  Total grant offered

  Total project costs

  Jobs to be created

  Jobs Sfgd

  1996–97

  29

  1,198,000

  9,160,899

  274

  116

  1997–98

  9

  249,000

  2,541,360

  70

  15

  1998–99

  14

  959,500

  7,878,023

  217

  84

  1999–2000

  7

  929,000

  10,619,376

  117

  293

  2000–01

  5

  920,000

  9,466,448

  226

  20

  2001–02

  3

  380,000

  3,329,350

  82

  18

  2002–03

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2003–04

  1

  249,000

  2,369,000

  77

  0

  Total

  68

  4,884,500

  45,364,456

  1,063

  546

  Enterprise Grant Scheme

  From January 2000–04

  24 offers

  Total amount £912,300.

  Smart/Research and Development

  From January 2000–04

  7 offers

  Total amount £586,263.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what work is being done to improve the quality of regulatory impact assessments carried out in her Department. [155324]
  1510W
  action and user awareness. The UK implemented new EU rules on the sending of unsolicited commercial e-mail here in December last year and we are playing a leading role in the development of international work on how to tackle crossborder spam.

  Small Business (Rochdale)
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what central Government support the small business sector has received in the constituency of Rochdale in each year since 1996. [157506]

  Mr. Timms
  The constituency of Rochdale has benefited from the following funding from central Government.

  Business Link Core Funding1

  SBS Core Funding for Business Link for North Manchester (£)

  2003–04

  2,868,225

  2002–03

  2,925,330

  2001–02

  2,661,103

  1Business Link for North Manchester includes four other local authority areas in addition to Rochdale.

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Cabinet Office published updated guidance on regulatory impact assessments (RIA) in January 2003, which built on lessons learnt since the system of RIA was first introduced in 1998. The Department is promoting the application of the guidance to help improve the quality of RIAs produced by this Department

  TETRA Contract
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the termination by the Austrian Government of the TETRA contract for the ADONIS nationwide radio communication network in June 2003; and what factors will be taken into account when a decision is made on the Firelink contract in the United Kingdom. [156979]
  1511W
  Mr. Timms
  The decision by the Austrian Government to terminate their TETRA contract is entirely a matter for them.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for placing the contract for the Firelink project. The evaluation criteria for the Firelink procurement will take into account the operational requirements and commercial aspects set out in the invitation to submit proposals. The successful bidder would also have to comply with all relevant UK planning, environmental and safely regulations.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many civil servants in his Department are directors of companies. [159343]

  Mr. Alexander
  The rules on civil servants and directorships are set out in paragraph 4.3.9 of The Civil Service Management Code, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Details of any civil servants who may hold an outside directorship will be held on an individual's personnel file. Such information is not held recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what recent representations he has received regarding the need for legislation to protect the independence of the civil service; [159577]

  (2) what progress has been made on the Government's commitment to bring forward legislation to protect the impartiality of the Civil Service in this parliamentary session; [159578]

  (3) what recent representations he has received on establishing a Civil Service commission in statute. [159581]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement of 21 January 2004,Official Report,columns 1341–349. In addition, the Public Administration Select Committee published its proposals for a Civil Service Bill on 5 January 2004. I am also aware of the debate that took place on this issue in the other place on 5 March 2004, Official Report,columns 889–934.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the annual change in the number of Civil Service employees was in each year since 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [159579]

  Mr. Alexander
  The information requested is published annually in Civil Service Statistics, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House and at www .civil-service. gov.uk/statistics

  Civil Service Training
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent representations he has received regarding Civil Service training; and if he will make a statement. [160020]
  1512W
  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office receives representations from a wide range of stakeholders and interested parties regarding Civil Service training including the Civil Service Trade Unions. The Centre for Management and Policy Studies which includes The Civil Service College is constantly seeking feedback on its courses with a view to ensure that Civil Service training meets the needs of the future of the Civil Service.

  Emergency Planning College
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what new training methods have been put in place at the Emergency Planning College at Easingwold over the past two years. [158981]

  Mr. Alexander
  A review of Emergency Planning College courses, their content and delivery methods was initiated in May 2003.

  Changes resulting from this review, including new courses, will begin to take effect from September 2004.

  Government Services
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to his answer of 2 March 2004,Official Report,column 764W, on Government services, what estimate each Government Department has provided on the amount of money expected to be saved by providing services through electronic means by 2005. [160018]

  Mr. Alexander
  Departments are required to develop business cases for major e-service projects. The Efficiency Review led by Sir Peter Gershon is working with departments to consider how electronic services could be used to deliver additional savings.

  Office of the e-Envoy
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the Office of the e-Envoy on the delivery of Government services online; and if he will make a statement; [160024]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the progress of the Office of the e-Envoy; and if he will make a statement. [160022]

  Mr. Alexander
  In 2002 the Information Age Partnership commissioned a major assessment of the UK's performance across the e-agenda leading to the publication of an independent international benchmarking report, 'The world's most effective policies for the e-economy'. The benchmarking results showed that the UK had made particularly strong progress with low internet access prices and high embedding of ICT in education. The report also found that UK's 'e-government readiness'—defined as the preparedness of government to engage and drive the e-agenda, and particularly deliver e-government—was a strength relative to G7 nations. The Office of the e-Envoy is working with departments towards the target of achieving 100 per cent. of services online by 2005 with key services achieving high levels of use. 68 per cent. of government services are now available electronically.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many(a)special advisers and (b)staff in total are employed in the Office of the e-Envoy. [160025]
  1513W
  Mr. Alexander
  No special advisers are employed in the Office of the e-Envoy. On 1 March 2004 there were 102 staff in post in the office of the e-Envoy.

  Policy Hub
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the impact of Policy Hub; and if he will make a statement. [160033]

  Mr. Alexander
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on 6 January 2004,Official Report,column 158.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the total expenditure has been(a)in the past 12 months and (b)since the inception on Policy Hub; and if he will make a statement. [160034]

  Mr. Alexander
  The information is as follows:

  (a)Expenditure on Policy Hub for the 12 months ending 31 January 2004, was £91,000. This reflects the costs of IT hosting, support and maintenance.

  Since 1 February 2004, the site has been located on the Cabinet Office server. Hosting, support and maintenance costs are now absorbed by general Cabinet Office IT costs.

  Running costs since inception, including that for the twelve months ending 31 January 2004 quoted above, totals £207,000 excluding VAT. Policy Hub was launched by the Centre for Management and Policy Studies in the Cabinet Office in March 2002 as part of a wider IT Knowledge Management project, however, it is not possible to disaggregate the costs of Policy Hub from the other elements of the project.

  Recruitment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the cost of recruitment of civil servants for the Department was in each financial year since 1996–97, broken down by(a)delegated or contracted out recruitment procedures and (b)recruitment procedures carried out by the Department. [158196]

  Mr. Alexander
  Cabinet Office staff recruitment processes and associated budgeting has been delegated to individual Management Units, who are supported by the Cabinet Office HR central recruitment team.

  Staff costs for the Cabinet Office HR central recruitment team are available from 2002 to present and are:
  2002–03: £216,712
  2003–04: £187,678

  Overall Cabinet Office recruitment costs and a breakdown between contracted out activity and recruitment procedure are not maintained centrally and could be provided in the detail required only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much money has been spent advertising Civil Service recruitment in(a)1996–97 and (b)the most recent period for which figures are available. [160049]
  1514W
  Mr. Alexander
  Responsibility for advertising government jobs lies with individual Government Departments. The information requested is not, therefore, collected centrally. The Civil Service Commissioners Code makes clear that a reasonable opportunity must be given to prospective applicants to become aware of vacancies.

  Regulation Costs
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimate he has made of the(a)recurring and (b)non-recurring costs for (i) a typical business and (ii) all business of the regulations passed so far this Session. [160045]

  Mr. Alexander
  All proposals which have a potential impact on business charities or voluntary bodies must be accompanied by a regulatory impact assessment determining whether the costs of the proposal are justified by its benefits. Costs of individual regulations can be found in the published regulatory impact assessments, available in the House Library.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what percentage of regulatory impact assessments recommended that the regulatory instruments under examination should not proceed in the last year for which figures are available; [160123]

  (2) how many regulatory instruments have failed to proceed following the negative conclusion of the regulatory impact assessments in each year since 2000. [160143]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on 2 February 2004,Official Report,column 715W.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what estimate he has made of the number of regulatory impact assessments conducted in 2003 which included a statement of what the respective department expected to happen in the absence of regulation; and what guidance his Department has issued on this subject; [160138]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the possible effect on the net benefits of regulation of including a do nothing option in regulatory impact assessments; [160137]

  (3) how many regulatory impact assessments conducted in 2003 contained a do nothing option. [160136]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government are committed to regulating only where necessary and promoting the use of alternatives to regulation. This includes the do nothing option, which provides a useful baseline against which to judge the potential impact of a proposal. As set out in Cabinet Office guidance 'Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment', Departments are required to consider alternatives as part of the RIA process. RIAs are published and placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the finding in the Evaluation of Regulatory Impact Assessments Compendium Report 2003–04, published
  1515W
  by the National Audit Office, that none of the sample regulatory impact assessments concluded that the costs to small business would be disproportionate. [160139]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government welcome the National Audit Office's (NAO) Compendium Report on the Evaluation of Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIA), and is currently in the process of looking at the findings and recommendations of the report.

  Secondments
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many private sector workers are seconded to(a)the Strategy Unit and (b)the Office of the e-Envoy; and if he will make a statement. [160026]

  Mr. Alexander
  There is at present one private sector worker seconded to the Strategy Unit and none to the Office of the e-Envoy.

  Service Denial
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many(a)denial of service and (b)distributed denial of service attacks have been recorded on Government department and agency computer networks and websites in each of the last five years. [160058]

  Mr. Alexander
  IT infrastructure, including IT security arrangements, is the responsibility of individual departments. The information requested is not, therefore, collected centrally.

  The Government have a continuous programme of work to identify vulnerabilities and prevent damage to critical national infrastructure, public sector networks and other inter-dependent information systems.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what powers special advisers within his Department have(a)to give direct orders to civil servants and (b)to exercise other executive powers; and if he will make a statement. [159585]

  Mr. Alexander
  The duties and responsibilities of special advisers are set out in the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers. Under the terms of the Civil Service Order in Council, up to three special adviser posts in the Prime Minister's office can have executive powers. Only one special adviser currently has such powers.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the total cost has been of special advisers accompanying Ministers on visits(a)abroad and (b)within the United Kingdom in the last 12 months. [159569]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government publishes on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. The cost figure includes the costs of any special advisers accompanying the Minister overseas. The cost for the financial year 2003–04 will be published as soon as it is ready after the end of the current financial year. The detailed information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  1516W
  All travel complies with the requirements of 'Travel by Ministers' and the 'Civil Service Management Code' as appropriate.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the total cost has been of provision of Government cars to special advisers in the last 12 months. [159570]

  Mr. Alexander
  Special advisers are not provided with allocated Government cars. As with all civil servants, special advisers are entitled to use official pool cars if departmental rules allow.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what the total cost has been of provision of Government office facilities to special advisers(a)in the last 12 months and (b)since 1997–98; [159571]

  (2) which Government-owned properties are used by special advisers for official business purposes; and if he will make a statement. [159574]

  Mr. Alexander
  Special advisers provide advice to Ministers. They will normally be located in the same building as the appointing Minister. The cost of providing office facilities to special advisers will not normally be separately identifiable from the cost of Ministers' private offices.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many special advisers are employed(a)within his Department and (b)across Government as a whole; and if he will make a statement. [159572]

  Mr. Alexander
  Within the Cabinet Office, the Minister without Portfolio currently employs one special adviser.

  As of 8 March, there are 77 special advisers employed across Government as a whole.

  Strategy Unit
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what inquiries the Strategy Unit is undertaking. [159332]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Strategy Unit's current projects include:Alcohol Misuse—producing an alcohol harm Reduction Strategy for England;
  A study of the medium to long-term issues facing the UK Fishing industry;
  A project on "Improving the prospects of people living in areas of multiple deprivation in England";
  A project on "Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People";
  A study of the long-term issues facing London and its role as the UK's capital and as a world city;
  A joint analytical study with the Home Office on police reform; and
  An analysis of the challenges raised by Countries at risk of Instability and how the UK should improve its strategic response to them.

  Details of the Unit's work can be found on its website: www.strategy. gov.uk

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many(a)special advisers and (b)staff in total are employed in the Strategy Unit. [160028]

  Mr. Alexander
  (a)No special advisers are employed in the Strategy Unit. (b)There are currently 79 members of staff employed in the Strategy Unit.
  1517W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the Strategy Unit; and if he will make a statement; [160029]

  (2) how many projects have been undertaken by the Strategy Unit (a)in the last 12 months and (b)since it was established; if he will make an assessment of their impact; and if he will make a statement. [160032]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Strategy Unit carries out long-term strategic reviews and policy analysis across a range of areas. It works with departments to improve strategic capability across government.

  The Government Chief Social Researcher's Office, which is based in the Strategy Unit, also provides strategic leadership to social research across departments.

  Details of the Strategy Unit's work can be found on its website www.strategy.gov.uk.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many people have been employed on each project undertaken by the Strategy Unit since its inception. [160031]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Strategy Unit was formed in June 2002. Strategy Unit staff work across a number of project issues. Staff numbers usually average between 70 and 90 depending upon the workload.

  Valuation Office Agency
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to the answer from the Paymaster General of 27 February 2004,Official Report,column 579W, on the Valuation Office Agency; whether the vacancy for a non-executive director of the Valuation Office Agency was advertised on the Public Appointments Unit website; when the names of the four candidates who were short-listed by the Valuation Office Agency for the position first entered the Cabinet Office's Public Appointments list; and whether they were self nominations. [159991]

  Mr. Alexander
  The vacancy for a non-executive director of the Valuation Office Agency was not advertised on the Public Appointments Vacancies website. The appointment was made in April 2002 prior to the development of the website which was launched on 27 March 2003. Since the website enables the open advertising of public appointments opportunities, it has replaced the use of a central list. In accordance with the Data Protection Act, the Department was not able to retain personal information about individuals who were on the list.

  Women (Consultation)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the women's organisations which have been consulted by his Department on proposed legislation during this Session; and whether their responses have been published. [160003]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government are committed to ensuring that all relevant stakeholders are identified and involved in consultations on proposed legislation.
  1518W
  A 12-week public consultation on the draft Civil Contingencies Bill took place between 19 June and 11 September 2003 Views were sought from a wide range of organisations with an interest in civil protection activity, including the Women's Royal Voluntary Service.

  The Government's response to the public consultation was published on 7 January and is available in the Libraries of the House.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Enterprise Advisers
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2003,Official Report,column 954W, on enterprise advisers, when the chief executive of the Learning and Skills Council will supply the information required. [157482]

  Mr. Miliband
  The LSC's chief executive has today written to the hon. Member about the start of the new Enterprise Advisor Service.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many speeches he made between 9 June 2003 and 1 February 2004; and where a copy of each speech can be obtained. [156154]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My right hon. Friend has spoken at a number of events during this period, some transcripts of which can be found on the departmental website www.dfes.gov.uk. Details relating to a specific speaking event can be obtained by emailing the Department's Speeches Team through the link provided on this website.

  School Governors
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how his Department has improved the way in which it assists school governors in(a)making decisions and (b)assessing budgets. [160069]

  Mr. Miliband
  My Department has given school governing bodies greater freedom to take decisions through removing unnecessary restrictions on delegation under new arrangements deregulating governing body procedures introduced last September. The new arrangements allow governing bodies to decide for themselves whether the majority of decisions need to be taken by the whole governing body, a committee with delegated powers, or an individual governor or the head teacher. This will enable governing bodies to operate more flexibly, make better use of available expertise and speed up decision making.

  Alongside this, we have improved information and communication arrangements so that governors have greater access to the information they need to take well informed decisions. Governors have access to up to date information across the full range of their responsibilities through Governor Net, our governors' portal; the Governors' Guide to the Law, which we can now keep up to date on GovernorNet; GovernorLine, an

  1519W
  independent advice line backed up by a legal advice service which all governors can access free of charge seven days a week; and our termly Newsletter for School Governors which is available in hard copy for all governors. The Newsletter is used to raise governor awareness of current issues, which should improve governing body decision making. In addition, our National Training Programmes for New Governors and Governing Body Clerks should improve the ability of new governors to contribute at an earlier stage as well as governing body decisions to be better documented. A new programme for anyone chairing governing body meetings or committees "Taking the Chair" and a joint programme for head teachers, governing body chairs and other school leaders "Leading Together" will both be available in the autumn.

  The Department has commissioned the National College for School Leadership and KPMG to design, develop and deliver a varied menu of support and guidance to help schools' budget management. This includes a dedicated website and helpdesk, which is available to all school governing bodies. There are also workshops for schools in those LEAs eligible for targeted transitional support, in the period January to March 2004. A team of two from each school can attend the workshop, which could include the chair of governors or the chair of the finance committee.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school governor places in England are vacant; and what percentage this represents of capacity. [160078]

  Mr. Miliband
  There are approximately 350,000 school governor places at maintained schools in England. At any one time, across the country, around 12 per cent. of these places are vacant.

  Schools (Capital Spending)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent on schools capital spending programmes in each year since 1979 in(a)England and Wales and (b)Staffordshire. [160059]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows capital allocations to local education authorities and schools in England and Staffordshire, from 1996–97 to 2003–04. Reliable figures are not available prior to this period. Allocations for Wales are a matter for the Welsh Office.

  Total capital allocations for England and Staffordshire from 1996–97 to 2003–04

  £ million

  England

  Of which: Staffordshire

  1996–97

  700

  3.7

  1997–98

  800

  7.4

  1998–99

  1,100

  125.9

  1999–2000

  1,400

  15.5

  2000–01

  2,100

  31.1

  2001–02

  2,200

  23.0

  2002–03

  3,000

  26.6

  2003–04

  3,800

  35.5

  1Includes £13.7 million of PFI credits.

  Students (Dependent Children)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if the Higher Education Funding Council for England will collect and publish statistics for the number of students with dependent children attending higher educational institutions, broken down by(a)institution and (b)region; [159858]

  (2) whether the Higher Education Funding Council for England collects statistics for the number of students with dependent children attending higher education institutions; and whether such statistics are publicly available. [159881]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 9 March 2004]:The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) collects and publishes statistics on behalf of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Data on the number of students with dependent children are not currently collected by HESA and there are no plans for their future collection or publication.

  Westminster Hall
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make it his policy to have senior Ministers reply to debates in Westminster Hall. [159611]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on 8 March 2004,Official Report,column. 1234W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the Government expect to meet their target that there should be no families in bed and breakfast for more than six weeks in London boroughs; and what steps he will take to sustain this policy. [159910]

  Yvette Cooper
  Official figures show that the number of families in bed and breakfast accommodation for more than six weeks halved between September 2002 and September 2003. Monitoring by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister shows considerable progress has been made since then. From April local authorities will have a statutory obligation not to house families in bed and breakfast for more than six weeks.

  Local Democracy (Participation)
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action his Department is taking to increase participation and engagement in local democratic structures. [159911]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government are keen to encourage participation and engagement in local democracy and continues to pursue a range of initiatives aimed at achieving this.
  1521W
  These include local government reform, new community-based initiatives, electoral pilots, the extension of e-government, and the opportunity for people to vote on regional devolution in the northern regions.

  Council Houses
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many council houses he expects will be built in the financial year 2004–05. [159912]

  Keith Hill
  The total number of local authority dwellings proposed to be built or acquired in 2004–05 for England is about 350.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on changes to council tax levels in 2004–05. [159913]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will publish definitive information on council tax levels in 2004–05 once we have validated returns from all authorities. In the meantime, I am pleased to say that most councils are budgeting prudently, and that council tax increases are expected to be, on average, less than half last year's levels.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 10 February 2004,Official Report,column 1347, if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter to the Mayor of London on the capping of council tax. [159174]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has written to a number of authorities but as a matter of policy it has not published either the names of these authorities or the text of the letters. It would be invidious to single out authorities by making public the letters they have received on this matter.

  Student Housing
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to prevent concentration of student housing in cities from affecting the sustainability of communities. [159914]

  Keith Hill
  Several Members of this House have made representations to me about the concentration of student housing in cities. There is limited scope for what can be achieved through national planning and housing policies. It is essential that universities and host local authorities work together to develop and share best practice and to plan and manage the impact students have on the wider community.

  Therefore, I have agreed to arrange a meeting with key stakeholders, including the Minister of State for Further and Higher Education, Universities UK and the Local Government Association to take this issue forward.

  Local Government (East Lancashire)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the options under consideration for local government reorganisation in East Lancashire. [159915]
  1522W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The options under consideration for local government reorganisation are matters for the independent Boundary Committee for England.

  Government will not take a view on any prospective scheme for reorganisation until we have received the final recommendations from the Boundary Committee, which we expect in May 2004.

  Burials (Private Land)
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what circumstances(a)a planning condition may be imposed and (b)a section 106 agreement may be made to limit the frequency of burials on private land to one a week, averaged over (a)three, (b)six, (c)nine and (d)12 months. [159964]

  Keith Hill
  A limited number of burials over a period of time may not constitute a "change of use" and no planning permission is necessary. Exceeding this "limited" number of burials may require planning approval.

  Planning conditions can only be attached to planning permissions. They are imposed to enable planning permission to be given. It is for the local authority to determine what conditions should be imposed to make it possible to grant permission for the desired use.

  Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a person with an interest in land to enter into a planning obligation to
  restrict the development or use of the land in any specified way;
  require specified operations or activities to be carried out in, on, under or over the land;
  require the land to be used in any specified way; or
  require a sum or sums to be paid to the authority on a specified date or dates or periodically.

  The obligation can be in the form of an agreement between a local planning authority or a unilateral undertaking.

  Planning obligations under section 106 may be made at any time, but in practice they are usually made between a developer and a local planning authority in the context of a planning permission. A person with an interest in land cannot be compelled to enter into planning obligations.

  Community Plan Areas
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which urban development corporations, either existing or proposed, cover the four community plan areas; what the dates are for their inception; what discussions have taken place with their constituent local authorities; and for what reason the Stansted-Cambridge community plan was extended to the whole of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. [159963]

  Keith Hill
  The Sustainable Communities Plan included a commitment in the Growth Areas to set up strengthened local delivery agencies with the necessary powers to drive forward development and the investment, public and private, it requires. For each major growth location the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister consulted local authorities on their views of the
  1523W
  best approach before taking a final decision. In the majority of locations we have agreed that a local authority led local partnership is the best way forward. In a few locations with regeneration objectives, cross-boundary issues and large scale or difficult sites, the long-term focus, funding and special powers of an Urban Development Corporation (UDC) will be required to help to deliver the necessary change and maximise the potential for large scale investment. To date this approach has been either adopted or proposed in two locations in the Thames Gateway and one in the Milton Keynes-South Midlands Growth Area.

  In the Thames Gateway, a UDC was established for Thurrock on 29 October 2003. Following public consultation earlier this year and subject to parliamentary approval, it is expected that a second UDC will be established for London Thames Gateway in summer 2004. In both Thurrock and London Thames Gateway, Ministers and officials have been engaged in lengthy and wide-ranging discussions with local authorities on the proposals to establish a UDC.

  In Milton Keynes-South Midlands, a UDC has been proposed for West Northamptonshire. As in the Gateway, we are firmly committed to a partnership approach for the proposed UDC, working closely with the local authorities, English Partnerships and the RDA. Prior to consultation, the Government and local authorities agreed that a UDC would be needed for West Northamptonshire to drive forward the regeneration of the area. We are currently engaged in a public consultation on the proposed UDC that will end on 12 March 2004. Subject to parliamentary approval, it is expected that the West Northamptonshire UDC will come into operation later in 2004 For Milton Keynes the proposed delivery mechanism will be an Urban Development Area (UDA), overseen by a Committee of English Partnerships. This "Milton Keynes Partnership Committee" will include representatives of the local authority, English Partnerships, the Local Strategic Partnership and the private sector Consultation on the proposed UDA ended on 5 March.

  On 2 February, we announced our intention to extend the London-Stansted-Cambridge (L-S-C) Growth Area to include Peterborough and all of Cambridgeshire. This decision takes account of the important role and potential of Peterborough in contributing to sustainable housing growth linked to the London-Stansted-Cambridge Growth Area, and the work of the Regional Planning Panel for the East of England in preparing new regional planning guidance for the region.

  It also reflects the important work under way on sustainable housing growth across Cambridgeshire, and particularly through the Cambridge Sub Region Infrastructure Partnership, which includes Fenland, East Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire.

  Fire Engines (Accidents)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many accidents involving fire engines took place in each London borough in 2003. [160214]
  1524W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister understands from the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority that the following is the number of accidents involving fire appliances that took place in each London borough in 2003:

  Borough

  Total

  Barking and Dagenham

  18

  Barnet

  13

  Bexley

  6

  Brent

  14

  Bromley

  12

  Camden

  20

  City of London

  7

  Croydon

  13

  Ealing

  19

  Enfield

  16

  Greenwich

  15

  Hackney

  14

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  7

  Haringey

  12

  Harrow

  5

  Havering

  6

  Hillingdon

  13

  Hounslow

  11

  Islington

  23

  Kensington and Chelsea

  28

  Kingston

  5

  Lambeth

  36

  Lewisham

  16

  Merton

  8

  Newham

  16

  Redbridge

  3

  Richmond

  3

  Southwark

  17

  Sutton

  7

  Tower Hamlets

  32

  Waltham Forest

  7

  Wandsworth

  16

  Westminster

  34

  Total

  472

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will provide further(a)planning guidelines and (b)resources to local planning authorities with respect to applications for G3 technology telecommunications masts. [160249]

  Keith Hill
  Current planning guidance for all electronic communication developments is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (revised) (PPG8). The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also issued a Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to change these arrangements at present.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is, however, making £350 million of additional resources available to planning authorities over three years to drive performance improvement. Authorities are free to spend this money in whatever way they wish.

  Public Sector Procurement
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of public
  1525W
  sector procurement as a tool for inner city regeneration; and what plans his Department has to develop the use of public sector procurement in the future. [158085]

  Yvette Cooper
  No specific assessment has been made of the effectiveness of public sector procurement as a tool for inner city regeneration. The National Procurement Strategy for Local Government, jointly published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Local Government Association (LGA) in October 2003, sets out a three-year strategy for procurement which encourages public sector bodies to consider wider corporate objectives such as economic and social regeneration as well as the need for better and cost-effective services for citizens.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for North Essex on 10 February, reference 155144, on elected regional assemblies; and what has delayed his response. [159828]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The relevant question was answered on 4 March 2004,Official Report,column 1106W.

  It will be for the Elected Regional Assembly in each of the three regions to decide on how best to meet its long-term accommodation requirements, including location.

  In reaching a decision on any initial temporary accommodation which may be required once an Elected Regional Assembly is in place, the Government will consult the regional chambers in the north-east, northwest and Yorkshire and the Humber.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many regional assembly members would be elected by(a)a the first-past-the-post system and (b)the additional member system in each of the regions where the Government propose to establish elected regional assemblies. [159830]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister laid out in the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", published May 2002 that the electoral system for the regional assemblies would be the additional member system. This will mean that two thirds of the members in each region will be elected as constituency members, and one third will be top-up regional list members. Each region will have between 25–35 members in total.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the number of assembly members for the proposed elected regional assemblies in the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber will be determined. [159831]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced in the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", published in May 2002, that each assembly will have between 25 and 35 members.

  Section 21 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 requires the Secretary of State to direct the Electoral Commission to advise him. The topics on
  1526W
  which advice can be requested are listed and include the number of electoral areas that an assembly should have. The Act requires that this direction be made no later than two years after a yes vote is gained in a referendum.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the constituencies for regional assembly members elected by the first-past-the-post system would be in(a)the north-east, (b)the north-west and (c)Yorkshire and the Humber. [159832]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Two thirds of the members in each region will be elected by regional constituencies under the first-past-the-post system, while the other third will be elected as "top-up" list members under the Additional Member System.

  Section 21 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 requires the Secretary of State to direct the Electoral Commission to advise him. The topics on which advice can be requested are listed and include the electoral areas for the assembly. The Act requires that this direction be made no later than two years after a yes vote is gained in a referendum.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether administrative cost savings consequent on the change in status of local government in North Yorkshire in the event of the establishment of a Regional Assembly would be deducted from future funding allocations to the county. [159196]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be discussing how to treat the costs and potential savings of reorganisation with local government. A working group has been established to look at costs and the wider practical implications of reorganisation. Its first meeting took place on 9 March.

  South East England Development Agency
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list each project on the Isle of Wight funded by South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) in the last 12 months for which information is available, showing the(a)funding from SEEDA for each project and (b)intended outcomes of each project. [155257]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the financial year April 2003 to March 2004, South East England Development Agency will invest a total of £ 13 million on 17 projects on the Isle of Wight. The purpose of those projects is to support the sustainable economic development of the Island. Forecasted core outputs should:create or safeguard 388 jobs, create or fill 1,672 learning opportunities between three and 30 hours duration and 112 over 30 hours and create 40 new businesses while sustaining a further 12 for 12 months. The following table applies this in more detail to individual projects.

  SEEDA has also provided £35,000 towards the Island's Community Wind project. This has funded a feasibility study which has been extended to cover use of renewable energy in refurbishment and newbuild in an estate in Newport. As well as added value through dissemination there is also a possibility of creating two jobs.
  1527W

  Isle of Wight SEEDA forecast spend and core outputs for 2003—04

  Core tier 3 outputs

  Project

  Forecast spend (£)

  New jobs created/safeguarded

  Hectares of brownfield land remediated or recycled

  Number of learning opportunities created and filled (3–30 hours)

  Number of learning opportunities over 30 hours

  New businesses created

  New businesses sustained for 12 months

  Ryde 2000—SRB scheme

  1,699,000

  25

  —

  307

  —

  25

  12

  Island Inclusive—SRB scheme

  106,106

  —

  —

  75

  —

  —

  —

  Rural Development Programme

  400,000

  17

  —

  52

  —

  14

  —

  Leader + (rural)

  100,000

  —

  —

  133

  —

  —

  —

  Market Town Initiative:

  184,342

  2

  —

  5

  —

  1

  —

  (Sandown, Shanklin, Ventnor)1

  Regional Selective Assistance

  200,000

  44

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Project

  Better Skills Better Community

  338,000

  —

  —

  1,000

  —

  —

  —

  Learning for all

  130,000

  —

  —

  100

  100

  —

  —

  Management Development—

  25,500

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  —

  PLATO2

  Isle of Wight Enterprise Hub3

  44,355

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cowes Marine Cluster3

  91,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Direct Development Activities (GKN, Cowes Waterfront, 3 Gates Road)

  9,600,000

  300

  Output is not calculated until land is remediated

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight Economic

  90,000

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Partnership Funding

  Total spend in Isle of Wight 2003–04

  13,008,303

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1Market Towns also deliver rural outputs such as improved community facilities and child care places.

  2This programme applies across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight and this represents a pro-rata allocation for the Isle of Wight.

  3Will deliver supplementary outputs such as business advice.

  4Not applicable

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Accession States
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether British embassies and high commissions in the EU accession countries will issue UK workers registration certificates; and whether there will be a charge for such certificates. [156932]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated in his statement to the House on 23 February 2003, Official Report columns 23–25, that, from 1 May, accession country nationals will have free movement across EU borders. They will not be required to apply for entry clearance to travel to the United Kingdom in search of work. With the exception of Malta and Cyprus, citizens of the new member states will need to register with the Home Office when they find a job in the UK, providing information about where and for whom they are working. Employers will be required to satisfy themselves that accession country nationals in their employ apply for and receive registration under this scheme.

  The registration scheme will be run by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. The Directorate is looking into whether all or part of the administrative costs of the scheme could be recovered through charges.

  Registration under the scheme will be issued for 12 months, and within that period will be valid for as long as the worker is in the registered employment. The worker should apply to renew the registration if he or
  1528W
  she finds a job with a new employer. Registration under the scheme will apply only to workers in the United Kingdom, not to those who are not working.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the number of(a)Afghan National Army personnel and (b)Afghan police that will (i) have completed training and (ii) be working officially within Afghanistan by 30 June. [159016]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 9 March 2004]:We currently estimate that around 10,000 Afghan National Army personnel and at least 5,000 Afghan police personnel will have completed training and be operational in Afghanistan by 30 June.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the German Government regarding the role of the German military in eradicating poppy production in the north of Afghanistan. [159018]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 9 March 2004]:As lead nation co-ordinating international counter-narcotics assistance to Afghanistan, the UK works closely with all Afghan and international partners, including Germany, to co-ordinate Afghanistan's drug control efforts to best effect. We have regular discussions with German counterparts about counter-narcotics assistance to Afghanistan.

  Although no international military forces are involved in the Afghan campaign to eradicate opium poppy, we encourage the Afghan authorities to use existing liaison mechanisms to ensure that all drug enforcement interventions are de-conflicted with the

  1529W
  wider security programmes in place. We understand the mandate for the German military forces in Afghanistan agreed by the German Parliament currently precludes any engagement in counter-narcotics activity of any type.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the British Government's objectives are for the conference on Afghan reconstruction in Berlin on 31 March and 1 April; and if he will make a statement. [159019]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 9 March 2004]:We will use the Berlin Conference to reaffirm our commitment to Afghanistan; to encourage other donors to contribute additional resources to the reconstruction effort; and to take forward the Action Plans that emerged from the joint Afghan/UN/UK Counter-Narcotics Conference in Kabul on 9 February.

  The conference will also provide an opportunity to take stock of progress to date against the Bonn Agreement of December 2001, and to agree with the Afghan Government and our international partners a blueprint for continued engagement over the next three to five years.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, made a Written Statement on 1 March 2004, Official Report,column 74WS, setting out the UK's increased pledge of at least £500 million for Afghanistan up to 2006–07. We are encouraging our international partners to follow our example and provide sufficient resources to allow Afghanistan to build on the achievements of the Bonn Process to date.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had regarding the role played by the German Government in setting the agenda for the international summit on Afghanistan to be held in Berlin. [159504]

  Mr. Straw
  The agenda for the Berlin Conference on Afghanistan (31 March to 1 April) has been set by the Afghan Transitional Administration, in consultation with Germany and other international partners.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the US Administration on stability in Uruzgun, Afghanistan during the period of February to 30 June 2004. [159537]

  Mr. Straw
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials at all levels are in regular contact with their US counterparts on all aspects of the current situation in Afghanistan, including security and stability in the regions.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 13 January 2004,Official Report,column 643W, on Cyprus, whether the University of Oslo has completed its report on the elections to the Assembly of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [159536]
  1530W
  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 9 March 2004]:The publication of the University of Oslo report has been delayed. We expect it to be published in the very near future.

  Hong Kong/China
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what UK assets in Hong Kong were given to China at the handover of sovereignty; and what their value was. [158505]

  Mr. Rammell
  Under the terms of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, the British Government agreed to restore Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China on 1 July 1997. A small number of military sites were covered by a separate Exchange of Notes in 1994 (Cm 2888 of June 1995). In practice the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government took over on 1 July 1997 the functions previously exercised by the colonial Hong Kong Government. This was done without any compensation and it was therefore not appropriate to put any value on what was handed back.

  The Joint Declaration provides Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy from mainland China except in foreign and defence affairs. The Joint Declaration states that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region "shall deal on its own with financial matters, including disposing of its financial resources" and "shall use its financial revenues exclusively for its own purposes and they shall not be handed over to the Central People's Government".

  Iraq
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 15 December 2003,Official Report,column 733W, on Iraq, if he will make a statement on the extent of the involvement of Mr. Nadhmi Auchi in the company which has been awarded the licence for the provision of mobile telecommunications services in the central region of Iraq including Baghdad. [149424]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Coalition Provisional Authority has informed us that the licence for the central Iraq sector, including Baghdad, was awarded to Orascom Iraq Holding Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Orascom Telecom Holding SAE, an Egyptian joint stock company. As the company is registered outside the UK, we are not in a position to verify information on its shareholders. Only UK registered companies are required to list their shareholders with Companies House.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of investigations by the Pentagon Inspector General into the awarding of contracts for the provision of mobile telecommunications services in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [149438]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have asked the United States Government for clarification and are awaiting a response.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a)the 28 February deadline for the

  1531W
  approval of the Fundamental Law in Iraq and (b)the 31 May deadline for elections to the transitional assembly. [158148]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 9 March 2004]:The Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) was signed by the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) on 8 March after intensive debate. The agreement on a TAL is a great achievement. The UN's recent report on the holding of the elections in Iraq concluded that properly organised elections to a Transitional National Assembly would not be feasible until late 2004 at the earliest and more probably early 2005. The IGC and the CPA have accepted the UN's recommendations on timings for the elections.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what security arrangements have been agreed between the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council; what time limits are attached to those agreements; what requirements they place on any future provisional government of Iraq; what their basis is in(a)Iraqi and (b)international law; and if he will make a statement. [158149]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 9 March 2004]:The status of multinational forces in Iraq and the legal mandate that will govern their presence and operations after the handover of authority to an Iraqi Government remain under consideration.

  Kurdish Independence
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Kurdish independence within a federal Iraq following the publication of the draft interim national constitution. [158554]

  Mr. Rammell
  The long term political structure of Iraq will be determined by the Transitional National Assembly due to be elected by January 2005. However, the Transitional Administrative Law recognises the administrative and legislative functions of the Kurdistan Regional Government, which is recognised as the official regional government of those territories that were administered by that Government as of 19 March 2003.

  Functions performed by the Kurdistan Regional Government shall continue to be exercised throughout the transitional period, except over those issues which fall within the exclusive competence of the central federal government as specified in the Transitional Administrative Law.

  Temporary Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff the Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; what percentage this is of total staff employed; and how much the Department paid employment agencies to supply temporary staff in(a)2001–02, (b)2002–03 and (c)2003–04 to the most recent date for which figures are available. [158239]
  1532W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We do not have a central record of the numbers of staff employed under contract from agencies; to obtain these figures would incur disproportionate costs. However the cost of temporary staff supplied to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is:

  Financial year

  Agency costs (£)

  2001–02

  1,933,841

  2002–03

  1,850,779

  2003–04 (until end November 2003)

  1,063,713

  Ukraine
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to develop closer(a)economic and (b)trading ties with the Ukraine; and if he will make a statement. [159544]

  Mr. MacShane
  Economic and trade ties between the UK and Ukraine are developing. For example, a Birmingham Chamber of Commerce trade mission visited Ukraine in February. Also the UK is a major investor in Ukraine, notably through BP's partnership with the Russian company TNK and through direct investments in Ukraine by the UK oil and gas company JKX. Trade will develop once Ukraine accedes to the WTO. The EU signed a bilateral WTO protocol with Ukraine last year; Ukraine is negotiating with other WTO members. The EU-Ukraine Partnership and Cooperation Agreement provides for an eventual Free Trade Agreement.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the Ukraine concerning its future membership of the European Union; and what(a)advice he plans to give and (b)co-operation he plans to undertake with the Ukraine in this matter. [159545]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK has regular contacts with Ukraine at official and ministerial level, at which Ukraine's relationship with the EU is often discussed. I visited Ukraine on 14 and 15 September 2003. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Ukrainian Foreign Minister, Kostyantyn Gryshchenko on 12 January 2004.

  Ukraine has a long way to go before the question of EU membership can be addressed. For now, Ukraine should focus on domestic reform and developing closer relations with the EU both through implementation of its Partnership and Co-operation Agreement and through full participation in the new European Neighbourhood Policy, which is aimed at strengthening the EU's relations with its neighbours.

  The Foreign Secretary made clear to Foreign Minister Gryshchenko in January that closer relations between Ukraine and the EU will depend on Ukraine's democratic process and its progress with democratic and other reforms. The extent to which the 2004 presidential elections are free and fair will be a crucial test.
  1533W
  The UK has committed almost £3 million to help create an environment in which elections can be more democratic, including by enabling the independent Ukrainian media to expose electoral malpractice. Of this amount, some £600,000 directly targets the 2004 presidential election. The UK will also provide support to international election monitoring.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the Ukraine concerning its future membership of NATO; and what his policy is on such membership. [159546]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed NATO issues with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kostyantyn Gryshchenko in January.

  We welcome Ukraine's determination to pursue full Euro-Atlantic integration. The UK continues to work closely with Ukraine and NATO Allies to promote full implementation of the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan launched at the Prague Summit in November 2002.

  Any enhancement of NATO-Ukraine relations needs to be based on a shared commitment to Euro-Atlantic values and standards. The extent to which the 2004 presidential elections are free and fair will be a crucial test of Ukraine's readiness for a closer relationship with NATO.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit the Ukraine; and if he will make a statement. [159547]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on 10 February 2004,Official Report,column 1308W.

  United Nations
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there have been breaches by the UK of the(a)Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations 1946 and (b)Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 in the last two years. [159378]

  Mr. Straw
  The United Kingdom is obliged to comply with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations 1946 in accordance with international law. There have been a small number of cases where, through administrative error, arriving diplomats have been referred for medical checks or had their personal effects opened in a manner not in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. On each occasion the matter was amicably resolved after the Foreign and Commonwealth Office apologised to the diplomatic mission concerned.

  US Visas
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of(a)British passport holders and (b)British journalists who visited the USA in each of the last five years; if he will make a statement on the new visa arrangements for travel from the UK to the
  1534W
  US; and what assessment he has made of the effect of the new arrangements on the timescale for issuing US visas to UK citizens. [159156]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Office for National Statistics estimates the number of UK residents visiting the US in each of the last five years as:

  Number of UK residents (million)

  1999

  4.73

  2000

  5.06

  2001

  4.66

  2002

  4.21

  2003

  3.8

  It is not possible to break these figures down between British Citizens, other British Nationals and others resident in the UK, or give figures for British passport holders who travelled to the US from another country in which they are normally resident.

  The US embassy in London issued the following numbers of five-year multiple entry visas to 'representatives of the media':

  Number of visas issued

  1999

  1,906

  2000

  2,034

  2001

  2,078

  2002

  1,816

  2003

  2,001

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has expressed concern to US Secretary of State Colin Powell at the effect of changes to the US Visa Waiver Programme due to come into effect on 26 October 2004. Discussions are under way with the US authorities. It is too early to predict the outcome.

  Westminster Hall
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to have senior Ministers reply to debates in Westminster Hall. [159620]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave on 8 March 2004,Official Report,column 1234W.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Climate Change
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the national security implications of climate change. [157945]

  Mr. Morley
  Across Government, we are carrying out internal assessments to identify how policy and operational responsibilities in all Departments could be affected by climate change. This process is currently reporting, and has included both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The MOD is continuing to look at the implications of climate change for national security.
  1535W
  Some of the potential linkages between climate change and security include increased pressure on food and water resources and energy supplies, which in turn (and in combination with other factors) may contribute to the causes of migration, instability and conflict.

  Waste
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase the total for private finance initiative credits for waste disposal plans. [156387]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognises the increasing contribution that the private finance initiative (PFI) is making in the area of waste management and disposal. £475 million of PFI credits are being made available for waste projects over the period from 2001–02 to 2005–06. To date, eight waste PFI projects have reached contract completion and there have been seven new approvals since April 2003. PFI is being considered as one funding route as part of the current Government Spending Review covering spending up to 2007–08. The outcome of the Spending Review will be announced in the summer.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at what level she intends to fix penalties for local Waste authorities which do not meet waste targets. [156389]

  Mr. Morley
  The level of penalty for Waste Disposal Authorities which landfill more than their available allowances under the Landfill Allowances Trading Scheme will be made known when the outcome to the recent consultation is published on the Defra website www.Defra.gov.uk. This is likely to be in early April. Waste Disposal Authorities will be able to avoid the imposition of penalties by making full use of the flexibilities in the scheme.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to reduce the amount of waste generated by(a)households and (b)businesses in London. [155273]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]:The Government's national policies to reduce the amount of waste generated will have an impact on London.

  The Government have committed over £40 million over the next three years (2003–06) to the Waste and Resources Action Programme's (WRAP) waste minimisation work. Its work tackles household waste minimisation through four schemes:
  an expansion of home composting;
  promotion of re-usable nappies;
  a research and development programme, aimed at identifying and developing innovative approaches to waste minimisation;
  work with major retailers to reduce the amount of waste entering the waste stream from supermarkets.

  Two London local authorities will participate in the 22 home composting pilot schemes that WRAP is running in 2004–05.

  In addition WRAP will take forward an education and awareness programme. This will operate at both a national and local level to raise the public's awareness about waste issues, including waste minimisation.
  1536W
  The Government have also provided significant extra funding through the London Recycling Fund, which in its first two years specifically funded a number of waste minimisation schemes.

  The London Recycling Fund has recently reviewed its business plan and has announced that waste minimisation and reuse is one of its three main priority areas for funding.

  The Mayor of London's municipal waste management strategy "Rethinking Rubbish in London" sets out a number of policies he proposes to take to reduce municipal waste growth in London.

  For businesses the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) set targets for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste and provide incentives to reduce the amount of packaging handled.

  The Government have entered into a voluntary agreement with the newspaper industry, which has seen recycled content of newspapers increase to well over the target of 60 per cent, last year. The Government are looking to enter into more agreements of this kind.

  The Government fund Envirowise, a business support programme dedicated to making businesses more resource efficient, saving money by minimising waste. Last year alone, Envirowise helped UK businesses to achieve annual cost savings of over £175 million, with a reduction of 1.6 million tonnes of solid waste. It also funds the Sustainable Technologies Initiative that provides funding for research and development projects aimed at minimising waste at source.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to require the Environment Agency to maintain more precise data on(a)inert, (b)non-hazardous and (c)hazardous waste arisings. [156406]

  Mr. Morley
  None. The Environment Agency already keeps data on the origin, quantity, type and destination of every load of special waste. There are no plans to make these more precise. The Department is examining data needs in the context of the Landfill Directive targets to divert biodegradable municipal waste from landfill but also more widely in relation to the EU Waste Statistics Regulation. The intention is to consult on a draft data strategy. A decision will be made in due course as to who would be responsible for collecting these data.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the meetings she has held with the Deputy Prime Minister since 1 June 2001 to determine how the United Kingdom will provide the new waste management capacity that the Environment Agency has indicated is necessary to achieve compliance with the Landfill Directive; and what achievements have resulted from these meetings. [156407]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, meets the Deputy Prime Minister frequently to discuss all manner of topics. ODPM and Defra are working together to revise Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 10, which covers Planning and Waste Management. The current PPG 10, issued in September
  1537W
  1999, deals with the planning considerations to be taken into account in preparing waste local (i.e. land use) plans. In updating PPG 10 (to Planning Policy Statement 10) the government aims to provide more strategic support for local authority decision makers in providing for new waste capacity—whether in plans or planning decisions. The aim is to publish a draft PPS 10 for consultation at the earliest opportunity.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the National Interim Waste Acceptance Procedures will be
  published. [156408]

  Mr. Morley
  The waste acceptance criteria that currently apply and will continue to do so until Council Decision 2003/33 is implemented in England and Wales, are referred to in Regulation 10 and Schedule 1 of the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002. Consultation on the amending regulations implementing the Council Decision has ended and the outcome of that consultation should be published on the Defra website www.Defra.gov.uk in March.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department will publish the(a)interim Hazardous Waste Regulations and (b)draft Hazardous Waste Regulations. [156409]

  Mr. Morley
  A draft of new Hazardous Waste Regulations will be made available when Defra goes out to consultation on the Regulations later this year. Defra has no plans to issue interim Hazardous Waste Regulations.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to ensure that hazardous waste is not transported between England and other parts of the UK to evade regulatory requirements; and if she will make a statement. [156412]

  Mr. Morley
  While regulatory requirements for hazardous waste in different parts of the UK may not be completely identical, the European Hazardous Waste List and the requirements of the Hazardous Waste Directive will be completely transposed throughout the UK. Movements of hazardous waste in the UK are tracked from the point of production to the point of final disposal, so those transporting such waste from one part of the UK to another will be unable to evade regulatory requirements.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department will lay before Parliament the amendments to the Landfill (Amendment) Regulations 2002. [156413]

  Mr. Morley
  Following the publication later this month of the consultation outcome on the Landfill (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2004, the aim is to lay those Regulations before Parliament in April. This will enable the deadline of 16 July 2004 for transposing Council Decision 2003/33 on waste acceptance criteria into national legislation to be met.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the waste streams to be banned from landfill from 16 July 2004. [156414]
  1538W
  Mr. Morley
  There are no waste streams that will be banned from landfill from 16 July 2004. Hazardous liquid wastes and wastes that are explosive, corrosive, oxidising or flammable have been banned from being disposed of to landfill since 16 July 2002 and whole tyres have been banned from landfill at new sites and hazardous landfills since 16 July 2003.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what high temperature incineration capacity exists in(a)France, (b)Germany and (c)the UK for treatment of hazardous waste; [156415]

  (2) what the rate of utilisation of high temperature incineration capacity within the United Kingdom was in the latest year for which figures are available. [156436]

  Mr. Morley
  In the UK there are two operational merchant high temperature incinerators and one mothballed. The two operational plants have a current combined capacity of approximately 110,000 tonnes per annum for hazardous, waste, and utilisation was broadly in line with capacity last year. There are also a number of in-house HTI plant, generally attached to other industrial facilities.

  Waste industry sources advise that France has 16 hazardous waste incinerators which corresponds to 770,000 tonnes per annum.

  In Germany there is incineration capacity for approximately 1 million tonnes of hazardous waste per annum in approximately 30 plant (18 of which are integrated with other industrial plant).

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether advice has been given to Government departments on how to dispose of(a)end of life fluorescent light bulbs and (b)other waste that will be classified as hazardous when the Hazardous Waste Regulations come into force. [156416]

  Mr. Morley
  It is anticipated that commitments for sustainable waste stream management on the Government Estate will be published during Spring/Summer 2004 as part of the waste section of the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate (Framework).

  Practical guidance (to include information about fluorescent tubes and hazardous waste) will be produced and placed on the Framework website.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate(a)her Department and (b)the Environment Agency has made of the total capacity using separate cells at non-hazardous landfill sites that will be able to accept stable non-reactive waste in each year from 2004 to 2010. [156417]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is examining its records in order to identify those non-hazardous landfill operators who have expressed an interest in constructing a separate cell in their non-hazardous landfill sites for stable non-reactive hazardous waste. When complete, this work will provide a snap-shot of the position that the Hazardous Waste Forum will factor into its work on treatment and disposal capacity
  1539W
  post July 2004. Whether or not to provide this disposal option is a commercial decision of the waste management industry.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the extent to which the Environment Agency's Regulatory Guidance Note 6 will prohibit the development of a separate cell at a non-hazardous landfill site able to take stable non-reactive waste. [156418]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has a duty to protect the environment and the requirements in its Regulatory Guidance Notes are drawn up with this duty to the fore. The technical/regulatory guidance that the Agency has produced on the use of separate cells for stable non-reactive hazardous waste—RGNs 6 and 11—reflect the need to maintain physical separation of the stabilised waste from chemically aggressive leachate from biodegradable waste in the same site. Providing landfill operators act in a responsible manner, there is no reason why RGN 6 should prevent the proper development of separate cells for stable non-reactive hazardous waste at non-hazardous landfill sites.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what methods were used to treat hazardous liquid waste in 2003; and how much hazardous liquid waste was sent to each of these methods; [156419]

  (2) how much hazardous liquid waste was sent for treatment by landfill in each year from 2000 to 2002. [156420]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is preparing the information requested and I will write to the hon. Member.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what penalties the European Commission could apply if the United Kingdom were to defer the ban on co-disposal of hazardous wastes with non-hazardous waste resulting from the Landfill Directive; and whether her Department has discussed such deferral with the European Commission. [156425]

  Mr. Morley
  The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 implement the provision in the Landfill Directive that bans the co-disposal of different categories of waste, except in certain specified circumstances, from 16 July 2004. The ban is therefore already part of UK legislation approved by Parliament and as a result, there has been no reason to discuss deferral with the European Commission. The question of possible penalties also does not arise.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action(a)her Department and (b)the Environment Agency have taken to liaise with (i) the Home Office, (ii) police forces and (iii) local authorities to (A) assess levels of risk associated with the unlawful disposal of hazardous waste and (B) implement a strategy to minimise the risk to the environment and human health. [156427]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra worked closely with the Home Office on development of environmental measures in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.
  1540W
  The Anti-social Behaviour Act extends a range of powers, currently only available to the Agency, to waste collection authorities to ensure they can tackle illegal dumping effectively.

  The Act also gives the Secretary of State the power to issue statutory directions to reinforce an existing voluntary agreement between the Local Government Association and the Environment Agency to create a clearer division of responsibilities. Defra published a consultation on proposed statutory directions on 23 February 2004.

  The Environment Agency have worked with Defra and the Local Government Association to develop "Flycapture", the National Fly-Tipping Database, that is due to go live from April 2004. This will assess the scale and cost of illegal dumping in England and Wales.

  Defra also worked closely with the Agency, local authorities and other Government departments to issue a Fly-Tipping Strategy that aims to ensure that legislation to combat fly-tipping is as effective as possible.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she asked the Minister for Ecology and Sustainable Development in the French Government at meetings of the EU Environment Council why France already requires pre-treatment of hazardous waste; and what response that Minister made. [156432]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend discusses all manner of topics with her Ministerial colleagues in the margins of Environment Council meetings. The approach of other Governments in the EU in respect of waste management issues reflect long term attitudes to the environmental problems that can arise if waste is not handled correctly. For its part, it is the aim of this Government to continue to move towards a more sustainable waste management system in the UK by placing greater emphasis on minimising waste and on reusing, recycling, recovering or treating the waste that is produced.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what volume of hazardous liquid waste was disposed directly to public sewers in 2003; and if she will make a statement on the implications for(a)human health and (b)the environment of such disposal. [156433]

  Mr. Morley
  Data on the volume of liquid waste and waste water discharges to public sewers is not held centrally, but the Environment Agency publishes relevant information pertaining to its regulatory functions in its Pollution Inventory. This information consists of the annual loads of a range of substances released to sewer and controlled waters and is available on the Environment Agency's "What's in your backyard" website (http://216.31.193.171/asp/1_introduction.asp)

  The entry of hazardous substances into sewers in England and Wales is subject to authorisation by sewerage undertakers under the Water Industry Act 1991, by the Environment Agency under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and by the Environment Agency or local authority under the Pollution Prevention Control Act 2000. In determining its authorisations the

  1541W
  Environment Agency ensures that discharges which may impact on environment do not pose a significant risk to human health or the environment.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what meetings she has had with representatives of the(a)Confederation of British Industry and (b)Chemical Industries Association on developing a strategy to inform waste producers of their obligations under the Landfill Directive. [156435]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, and other Defra Ministers meet both organisations as and when necessary and may discuss a range of issues. A strategy to inform waste producers of their obligations under the Landfill Directive is an integral part of the Hazardous Waste Forum's Action Plan, published in December 2003. Both the Confederation of British Industry and the Chemical Industries Association are members of the Forum and were actively involved in drawing up the strategy. Also, both organisations have an important role to play in the delivery of that strategy.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what checks are made on low-level radioactive waste sites; how often they are checked; and by whom checks are done. [157261]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency (EA), under the provisions of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, regulates low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) disposal sites in England and Wales. This is achieved through authorisations which impose various conditions on the site operator. The authorisations require the operator to routinely report to the EA disposals against the authorised limits. In addition to reviewing these reports, the EA periodically inspects all authorised LLW disposal sites, to ensure that the conditions of the authorisation remain appropriate, and are being complied with.

  The primary UK national LLW disposal site, operated by BNFL at Drigg in West Cumbria, is regulated by both the EA and by the Nuclear Safety Directorate of the Health and Safety Executive, under the provisions of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

  The EA monitors radioactivity in surface waters (leachates, boreholes and nearby rivers and streams) around waste disposal (landfill) sites where disposals of low-level radioactive waste are authorised. This is undertaken on an annual or bi-annual basis.

  BNFL undertake quarterly monitoring programmes of boreholes at the Clifton Marsh landfill site. In addition the company carries out quarterly dose rate surveys in relation to the Ulnes Walton landfill site and monitoring of the River Lostock close to the outfall point. The results of these monitoring programmes can be found on the BNFL website at www.bnfl.com.

  The EA undertakes a thorough radioactivity monitoring regime in the vicinity of the Drigg site. This includes monitoring of surface waters and sediments bi-annually and monitoring of sands, sediments and seaweeds on the West Cumbrian coast four times per year. The Food Standards Agency also carries out monitoring of foods in West Cumbria to check that food produced around Sellafield and Drigg is safe. The monitoring includes seafoods caught from the Irish Sea off the West Cumbrian coast.
  1542W
  From 2002, the results of all the environmental monitoring carried out by the Environment Agency and by the Food Standards Agency are reported jointly and annually in the Radioactivity in Food and the Environment report series, copies of which are placed in the Library.

  Air Quality Expert Group
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a)total budget and (b)budget for administration were for the Air Quality Expert Group in financial year 2002–03. [158683]

  Alun Michael
  The estimated total budget for AQEG in financial year 2002–03 was £74,000. The estimated administration budget was £27,500, based on the costs of Defra staff resources to run the Secretariat.

  Asgard Systems
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under what circumstances a court action may be brought against the Environment Agency concerning the quality of advice given by the Agency on an enquiry by a business or member of the public; and if she will make a statement. [156717]

  Mr. Morley
  I am advised that where a public body, such as the Environment Agency, has given advice to a person, that person may be able to bring some form of court action against the public body if that body has acted in some way that is improper, negligent or in breach of its statutory duties. The nature and likely merits of any such action would depend on the particular circumstances of the case. Consequently, any person thinking of taking legal action against a public body would be well advised to seek independent legal advice before doing so.

  Batteries (Disposal)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food avid Rural Affairs if she will hold a consultation exercise on the forthcoming EU directive on the disposal and recycling of batteries. [157527]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government intend to issue a consultation document on the draft Batteries Directive this spring.

  Biosafety Protocol
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what position the UK took at the recent meeting of parties to the Biosafety Protocol in Kuala Lumpur in relation to the creation of an international liability regime. [159796]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 March 2004]:In line with the EU's common position (as set out in December's Environment Council Conclusions), the UK supported the adoption of a process with respect to the appropriate elaboration of international rules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for damage resulting from transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (GM0s), and making a final report to the meeting of the Parties within four years (by 2008).
  1543W
  The EU/UK position was that the most appropriate mechanism for this process should be a group of technical and legal experts.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many human cases of M.bovis have been linked to occupational exposure to infected cattle in the last 10 years. [157956]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no official records for occupational exposure, though two cases, themselves linked, are reported to have been linked to occupation in recent years. The most up to date available figures for human M.bovis infection in England and Wales since 1993 are shown in the table. Figures are not yet available for 2002.

  Year

  Total M.bovis human infections

  1993

  37

  1994

  31

  1995

  20

  1996

  32

  1997

  30

  1998

  30

  1999

  31

  2000

  18

  2001

  127

  1Provisional data

  Source:

  MycobNet Health Protection Agency Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre 1993–2001.

  Cetaceans
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures the Government have taken since 1997, and what further measures are proposed, to reduce the number of dolphins and porpoises killed; and if she will make a statement. [156215]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since 1997, the Government have funded a number of research projects to identify fisheries in which dolphin and porpoise bycatch occurs and to develop and trial measures to reduce this bycatch. This work has led in particular to the identification of a dolphin bycatch problem in the offshore pair trawl fishery for bass and the development of an escape grid mechanism as a potential means of reducing this bycatch. Trials of this device are currently taking place. Work has also identified that acoustic devices known as pingers are effective in reducing bycatch of harbour porpoises in fixed gear fisheries.

  Alongside this work this Department, along with devolved Administrations, published in March 2003 the UK Small Cetacean Bycatch Response Strategy which made a number of recommendations to reduce bycatch. We are currently considering responses to this consultation document with a view to the implementation of this strategy. As EU measures will be most effective in reducing bycatch in community waters, the strategy will need to take account of the outcome of current discussions on European Commission proposals to reduce bycatch. I welcome the Commission proposals and I am looking for their early implementation.
  1544W

  Departmental Premises (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department plans to sell its premises in Beeches Road, Chelmsford; and if she will make a statement. [159993]

  Alun Michael
  Defra does not own premises at Beeches Road, Chelmsford; it leases space from Department of Works and Pensions. We have no plans to leave.

  Ducks
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many ducks other than ruddy ducks, broken down by species, have been culled as a result of the ruddy duck control scheme. [159213]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A total of five ducks other than ruddy ducks have been killed during shooting operations since April 1999; two female tufted ducks, one male tufted duck, one male teal and one juvenile long-tailed duck, this compares to a total of over 4,200 ruddy ducks shot.

  A further seven ducks (mallard chicks) died during the trap-testing which took place during the control trial. This compares to 17 ruddy ducks trapped.

  The killing of non-target birds is taken very seriously and every effort is made to minimise such losses. The Standard Operating Procedures issued to all field operatives make it clear that there should be a high degree of vigilance over identification and that shooting should only take place if safe to do so without causing injury or death to non-target species.

  End of Life Vehicles Directive
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many vehicle dismantlers registered with the Environmental Agency for a site licence before the 1 February deadline under implementation of the European End of Life Vehicles Directive; and how many vehicle dismantlers she estimates are operating without licences. [157982]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency received 600 applications from vehicle dismantlers wanting to register for their site licences before the 31 January deadline. In addition, 900 sites are already licensed to treat ELVs.

  It is very difficult to estimate how many vehicle dismantlers are operating without a licence because registered exempt sites may continue to accept depolluted ELVs. The agency has yet to check how many previously exempt sites have not applied for a licence, but these sites are mainly small scale and already operate to high standards of environmental protection.

  Environmentally Sustainable Procurement
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in what ways environmentally sustainable procurement strategies within the Department have driven innovation in the design and supply of products. [159102]
  1545W
  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out an overview of the Government's approach to sustainable procurement on 30 October 2003,Official Report,column 15WS, signalling how recommendations from the inter-departmental Sustainable Procurement Group (SPG) would be taken forward.

  The emphasis in the first phase of action will be on the frameworks for sustainable procurement practice and the embedding across Government of minimum specification standards which represent good environmental practice. We consider that these are essential steps towards tackling the still tougher challenge of encouraging environmental innovation through public procurement.

  The report of the SPG (www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/sdig/improving/partf/report03/08.htm) recommended that the theme of sustainable procurement and innovation should be a focus for further work over the coming year. That work has now started, and will be taken forward in the context also of the Government's Innovation Report, published by the Department of Trade and Industry in December (www.dti.gov.uk/innovationreport/innovation-report-full.pdf).

  It is expected that the forthcoming procurement section of the "Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate" (see http://www.sustainabledevelopment.gov.uk/sdig/improving/index.htnn) will set Government wide commitments for embedding sustainable development considerations in departmental procurement strategies.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the implications for farmers of delays in the start-up of the fallen stock collection service; and what arrangement she has put in place to exempt farmers from possible prosecution under the EU directive on prevention of burying deadstock. [159404]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]:The ban on burial has been in place since 1 May 2003 and, as we made clear then, we expect farmers to use existing approved outlets such as knacker yards, hunt kennels, maggot farms, rendering facilities or incineration plants for disposal of their fallen stock. However, we have asked local authorities to take a pragmatic approach to enforcement where farmers have made every effort to dispose of their fallen stock via these outlets but are genuinely unable to comply.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people signed up to the fallen stock collection scheme, broken down by region. [159405]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 5 March 2004 ]:There has been no invitation to farmers to sign up to the National Fallen Stock Scheme. Initial expressions of interest in joining the scheme were sought from farmers last year.

  Farm Payments
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in what circumstances the Government are unable to disclose 1546W
  the names and addresses of (a)individuals and (b)companies in receipt of direct payments under the Common Agricultural Policy; and if she will make a statement. [160168]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) is bound by commercial confidentiality in its dealings with its customers, whether sole traders or farmers or corporations, breach of which by disclosing information relating to the affairs of individual traders or farmers or corporations would expose the RPA to the liability of legal proceedings in tort.

  In relation to individual farmers or traders, information which is of a personal nature, such as individual payments to such persons, is personal data which is protected from voluntary disclosure under the Data Protection Act 1998. While the RPA can release global figures relating to payments, which do not identify individual persons, including corporations, it is unable to release individual figures without incurring the liabilities under the two principles referred to.

  GM Crops
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many GM plants per square metre would be expected to grown in a field of conventional crops of which 0.9 per cent. of plants are GM in respect of(a)oil seed rape, (b)sugar beet and (c)maize. [158276]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answers 2 March 2004]:Seed drilling rate is variable, depending on conditions, and only a proportion of those seeds sown will establish. Approximate figures for established plants are as follows: Oilseed rape 50–60 crop plants per metre square; Beet 8–10 plants per metre square; and, Fodder Maize 10 plants per metre square. Accordingly, 0.9 per cent. of these values would give 0.45–0.54 plants per metre square for Oilseed Rape; 0.07–0.09 plants per metre square for Beet; and, 0.09 plants per metre square for Maize.

  Household Waste
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the legislative changes required to allow local authorities to adopt direct and variable charging schemes for the collection and disposal of household waste. [158231]

  Mr. Morley
  Amendments to sections 45 and 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 would be required to allow waste collection authorities and waste disposal authorities to charge householders for the collection, processing, treatment and disposal of household waste and for household waste delivered to Civic Amenity sites respectively. Provision would also need to be made under such powers for secondary legislation to provide for the exercise of those powers by local authorities.

  Landfill
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for how long after use of a landfill site has been discontinued low-level radioactive waste monitoring is carried out. [157296]
  1547W
  Mr. Morley
  Responsibility for regular annual monitoring of radioactivity in the environment around landfill sites in England and Wales rests with the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for Scotland.

  There is no fixed time after which monitoring for radioactivity around landfill sites will cease to be undertaken once they cease to receive radioactive wastes. Monitoring programmes are kept under review and any decision to discontinue monitoring is only made after careful evaluation. Evaluation takes into account the inventory of waste disposed to a site, including the radionuclides and quantities, the characteristics of the disposal site, and whether monitoring results have shown that radioactivity is consistently low or not detectable.

  The results of radioactivity monitoring carried out around landfill sites are reported annually. Results for 2002 are presented in Radioactivity in Food and the Environment Report (RIFE—8), which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding was given to the Meat and Livestock Commission in each of the last five years. [157706]

  Alun Michael
  Funding (ie from net Statutory Levy income and non-commercial fee and grant income) received by the Meat and Livestock Commission in the last five years was as follows:

  £ million

  1998–99

  39.566

  1999–2000

  38.461

  2000–01

  36.668

  2001–02

  27.667

  2002–03

  31.531

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how her Department's funding to the Meat and Livestock Commission is spent; and what rules apply to the promotion of(a)Welsh (i) lamb and (ii) beef, (b)Scottish (ii)lamb and (ii) beef and (c)English (i) lamb and (ii)beef. [158582]

  Alun Michael
  The Agriculture Act 1967 requires the Department to pay for the remuneration and expenses of Meat and Livestock (MLC) Commissioners. As regards how the MLC spend the statutory general and promotional levies raised by them on cattle, sheep and pigs, this information is available in the MLC's annual report and accounts which Ministers are required under the Act to lay before each House of Parliament.

  Bodies in receipt of MLC levy funding must abide by EU State Aid rules when undertaking lamb or beef promotion campaigns. These rules place restrictions on the use of State (including levy) funds for the advertising of agricultural products on the basis of origin. Welsh lamb, Welsh beef, Scotch lamb and Scotch beef have been awarded Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) status by the European Commission. This means that the European Commission
  1548W
  has accepted the link between the geographical origin and the characteristics of the product. In such cases, State money may be used to fund advertising where origin is part of the message. English lamb and English beef do not have PGI status.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will provide financial assistance for owners of mobile homes in flood risk areas who are required by their insurance company to raise their homes above flood level; and if she will make a statement. [155866]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government do not offer financial assistance for homes in flood risk areas. Financial issues relating to maintenance and insurance of the property are the responsibility of the property owner.

  For mobile homes as with other properties, insurers will examine the risks on a case-by-case basis, and will use their best efforts to continue to provide cover. The Association of British Insurers believes that nearly all homes are insurable to a degree, provided appropriate action is taken to protect the property, eg by raising homes above flood level.

  National Fruit Collection
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on the land ownership issues at Brogdale as they affect the National Fruit Collection; [159262]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the future of the National Fruit Collection at Brogdale; [159263]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the criteria her Department used to assess a suitable manager for the National Fruit Collection. [159264]

  Alun Michael
  The National Fruit Collection belongs to Defra and we have contracts with Brogdale Horticulture Trust covering its maintenance and curation; and with Imperial College (Wye) on scientific programme direction. Under overriding lease provisions, agreed some years ago, we have access to the NFC until 2016, irrespective of land ownership or land holding considerations. We have been holding a number of discussions with Brogdale Horticulture Trust about the future curation contract arrangements which we hope to conclude shortly.

  Radioactive Waste
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what mechanisms she is evaluating to ensure that people hundreds of years hence are aware of(a)the presence and (b)the dangers of existing radioactive material which has a half-life extending beyond hundreds of years; [152619]

  (2) what safeguards she intends to put in place to prevent radioactive contamination of future generations from (a)existing stocks of (i) intermediate level and (ii) high-level radioactive material and (b)from stocks predicted to arise over the next 50 years. [152692]

  Mr. Morley
  The safe operation of interim radioactive material and waste storage and eventual disposal facilities is a matter for regulatory control by the Health and Safety
  1549W
  Executive and the environment agencies. Both Ministers and the regulatory bodies require safety cases submitted for the operation of such facilities to provide demonstration of adequate protection of the public and the environment both now and into the future. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) has been set up under the "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" programme to provide recommendations to UK Government and the devolved Administrations on the best option, or combination of options, for safe long-term management of the UK's higher activity radioactive wastes, including all intermediate and high level waste, liable to arise in the foreseeable future.

  Water Charges
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the percentage change in charges to householders for water charges in the last five years, broken

  Nominal average household sewerage bill(£)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  20000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Anglian

  154

  158

  164

  156

  144

  151

  157

  163

  Dwr Cymru

  136

  146

  158

  166

  140

  147

  152

  155

  North West

  109

  122

  133

  143

  119

  122

  113

  116

  Northumbrian

  113

  118

  126

  141

  110

  112

  96

  101

  Severn Trent

  106

  112

  117

  115

  92

  95

  211

  221

  South West

  202

  213

  229

  237

  205

  203

  152

  159

  Southern

  131

  141

  152

  162

  148

  153

  93

  95

  Thames

  93

  98

  102

  104

  92

  95

  122

  127

  Wessex

  129

  135

  142

  144

  124

  133

  133

  142

  Yorkshire

  113

  115

  118

  123

  109

  112

  112

  117

  England and Wales

  117

  123

  131

  134

  116

  119

  121

  125

  align="center">Nominal average household water bill(£)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Anglian

  128

  126

  124

  116

  107

  110

  113

  116

  Hartlepool

  88

  91

  96

  95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dwr Cymru

  128

  135

  136

  134

  126

  123

  124

  122

  North West

  93

  99

  101

  103

  103

  107

  109

  118

  Northumbrian

  96

  98

  102

  100

  88

  88

  88

  90

  Essex and Suffolk

  116

  120

  127

  129

  107

  112

  111

  113

  Severn Trent

  88

  97

  105

  113

  106

  108

  108

  112

  South West

  127

  129

  125

  119

  109

  110

  115

  121

  Southern

  94

  101

  105

  111

  91

  91

  90

  91

  Thames

  88

  93

  99

  102

  95

  99

  104

  106

  Wessex

  114

  118

  124

  124

  10

  112

  113

  119

  Yorkshire

  104

  105

  108

  111

  100

  103

  104

  110

  York

  87

  89

  93

  96

  87

  90

  90

  94

  Bournemouth and West Hampshire

  94

  97

  103

  102

  99

  98

  101

  102

  Bristol

  100

  104

  108

  111

  101

  105

  106

  107

  Cambridge

  103

  106

  106

  98

  86

  87

  90

  94

  Cholderton

  126

  130

  151

  136

  130

  141

  153

  143

  Dee Valley

  —

  —

  —

  120

  107

  106

  104

  106

  Chester

  106

  108

  108

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wrexham

  130

  129

  129

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Folkestone and Dover

  114

  118

  116

  117

  118

  125

  125

  135

  Mid Kent

  131

  135

  141

  146

  117

  123

  127

  128

  Portsmouth

  72

  72

  73

  74

  74

  75

  75

  76

  Mid South East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  118

  114

  121

  126

  South East

  156

  155

  158

  159

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Southern

  114

  115

  116

  120

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Staffs

  75

  78

  81

  85

  84

  86

  86

  89

  Sutton and East Surrey

  136

  135

  139

  134

  112

  120

  121

  126

  Tendring Hundred

  149

  150

  152

  151

  137

  142

  146

  153

  Three Valleys

  107

  112

  117

  124

  106

  111

  112

  116

  North Surrey

  108

  112

  123

  126

  109

  111

  103

  110

  England and Wales

  101

  106

  112

  112

  103

  105

  107

  111

  1550W
  down by region; and what advice has been given to water providers with respect to such charges. [157372]

  Mr. Morley
  Water bills and sewerage bills are set separately by each water and sewerage company and water company in England and Wales. The boundaries of these companies do not conform to the boundaries between England and Wales nor to the boundaries between English regions. It has therefore not been possible to make assessments on the basis requested.

  The Director General of Water Services (Ofwat) sets upper price limits for water and sewerage companies and approves companies' yearly charges schemes for customers. The Secretary of State issues guidance to Ofwat on Government policies affecting price limits and on the approval of charges schemes.

  The average household water and sewerage bills for each company in England and Wales in each financial year since 1996–97 are set out in the following two tables.
  1551W

TREASURY

  Compliance Performance Targets
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the Answers of 26 January 2004,Official Report,column 110W, and 1 March 2004, Official Report,column 658W, on compliance performance targets, what the compliance performance estimate the for Inland Revenue was for 2003–04 as agreed as part of the planning process for the current year; and what the estimates for the compliance performance were in 2003–04 of (a)the Large Business Office and (b)International Division. [160099]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has not drawn up compliance performance estimates since 1999–2000, when a global estimate for the Department was given. As the Board's report for 2003 sets out, yield figures vary according to the number and tax effect of the complex enquiries brought to settlement in each year, and this is also affected by the consequences of litigation undertaken.

  Project ASPIRE
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the Answer of 27 February 2004,Official Report,column 575W, on the Inland Revenue, which commissioners of the Inland Revenue had prior knowledge of the suppliers with whom the Inland Revenue team intended to meet as part of the market making exercise for Project ASPIRE. [160014]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As the Board member responsible for Business Services, Tim Flesher had prior knowledge of the suppliers with whom the Inland Revenue team intended to meet as part of the Market Making exercise for Project ASPIRE.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who the board member referred to in paragraph 54 of the Minutes of Evidence of the Public Accounts Committee, HC 431-i, Session 1999–2000, as responsible for John Yard's division on 12 April 2000 was; on what date that board member started the planning for re-tendering the Inland Revenue's information technology service referred to in the Minutes of Evidence; and on what date it was decided to conduct the market making exercise referred to in the Minutes of Evidence. [160016]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As I stated in my answer of 6 February 2004,Official Report,column 1081W, the Board member responsible for Business Services on 12 April 2000 was Tim Flesher, who at that time was the Inland Revenue's Deputy Chairman. As I also stated in my answer of 16 December 2003, Official Report,column 803W, planning for the ASPIRE project began in January 2001. The Market making exercise was conceived by the Inland Revenue between August and October 2001, as stated in my answer of 14 October 2003, Official Report,column 141W.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the Answer of 30 January 2004,Official Report,columns 569–70W, which commissioners were present at the meeting on 7 March 2002 on Project ASPIRE; whether the commissioners addressed the
  1552W
  assembled suppliers; and whether the commissioners were informed in advance of those suppliers who had indicated that they would attend the meeting. [160015]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Sir Nicholas Montagu KCB, Chairman of the Inland Revenue, and Tim Flesher, the former Deputy Chairman of the Inland Revenue were present at the meeting on 7 March 2002. Both addressed the meeting and had been informed in advance about which suppliers would attend the meeting.

  Public Sector Borrowing
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a)public, (b)private and (c)total borrowing of (i) those higher education institutions in receipt of funding from the Higher Education Funding Councils, (ii) housing associations and (iii) Network Rail was in each year from 1997–98 to 2002–03; and what the latest available figures are for the (A) public, (B) private and (C) total debt of each. [156160]

  Mr. Boateng
  Details of the borrowing for academic years 1997–81 to 2002–03 by higher education institutions in receipt of funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England were published for each year by HEFCE in their "Outcomes of financial forecasts, annual monitoring statements and corporate planning statements", copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Details of the borrowing for financial years 1997–98 to 2002–03 by housing associations are available in the Housing Corporation's Annual Private Finance Monitoring Bulletins 1998 to 2003, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Network Rail has been responsible for operating, maintaining and renewing Britain's rail infrastructure only since October 2002. Consequently, 2002–03 is the only financial year for which published information on borrowing is available. This is in the company's annual report and accounts copies of which are available in the Library of the House. None of their borrowing at the end of the year was from the public sector. The position for the current year is not yet publicly available.

  Redundancy Money
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the threshold at which tax is paid on redundancy money. [159882]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As with all taxes the threshold at which tax is paid on redundancy money is a matter for the Chancellor to consider as part of the annual Budget process.

  Scottish Football Industry
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what responsibilities his Department has in relation to the Scottish football industry; and if he will make a statement. [156824]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]:Sport is primarily a devolved matter in Scotland and so the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. In relation to non devolved fiscal aspects, the 2003 Pre-Budget Report announced that the Government is to consider

  1553W
  how it can best help to support Football Supporters' Trusts, in particular by a review of how they are treated by the Inland Revenue.

  Small Business Taxation
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report,column 910W, on small business taxation, what plans he has to change the taxation of small businesses. [159644]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All taxes are reviewed as part of the annual Budget process.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what construction and refurbishment HM Treasury is undertaking; at what locations; and what measures are being implemented to ensure that all timber used(a)on the construction sites and (b)in the final project will come from legal and sustainable sources. [158105]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury is not undertaking any construction and refurbishment projects. The Department moved into refurbished premises at 1 Horse Guards Road in the summer of 2002.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which companies have contracts for furniture provision for HM Treasury; and what measures have been implemented to ensure that when a product contains wood, it can be shown to come from legal and sustainable sources. [158107]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury purchases its furniture though direct contracts and framework agreements let by OGC Buying Solutions or Inland Revenue. In all cases there are clauses in the contract that require any wood products to come from sustainable sources.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Housing Benefit
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason the Housing Benefit Regulations(a)require a Rent Officer to review the rent of a private landlord and (b)do not require a rent officer to review the rent of a registered social landlord. [158985]

  Mr. Pond
  Claims received from those in the private rented sector will generally be referred to the local Rent Officer for a rental valuation to determine the HB claim. The Rent Officer will look at the level of rents within the neighbourhood as well as in the wider locality. Any subsequent restriction in the rent used to calculate Housing Benefit will reflect a reasonable market rent for suitable accommodation of the appropriate size within the locality. This ensures that benefit paid to claimants is sufficient to pay for an appropriate dwelling whilst, at the same time, protecting the public purse.
  1554W
  Generally, local authorities are not required to refer registered social landlord (RSL) tenancies to the rent officer for determination; the full contractual rent, less any ineligible charges, is used to calculate Housing Benefit. RSL rents are subject to Housing Corporation regulation and are generally set within prevailing market levels. However, where the local authority considers the rent to be excessive, or the accommodation overlarge for the tenant's needs, it is required to refer the tenancy to the Rent Officer. Where a tenancy is referred to a Rent Officer, Housing Benefit would be restricted to a maximum rent in the usual way.

  Age Discrimination
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Code of Practice on age discrimination in the workplace. [156084]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Code of Practice was launched in 1999 and an initial evaluation of its impact was, undertaken in 2001. This showed that the number of companies using age in recruitment had fallen from 27 per cent. to 13 per cent., awareness of the Code had risen from 14 per cent. to 37 per cent. and the number of companies having a policy against employing older workers had dropped from 14 per cent. to 7 per cent. Since then we have continued to promote the business case for recruiting, training and retaining older workers through the Age Positive, campaign and website, www.agepositive.gov uk. We are commissioning more research with employers this year to further assess the impact of the campaign.

  In December 2002, we published an updated version of the Code of Practice 'Age Diversity at work: a practical guide for business' which sets out the standards for non-ageist approaches to recruitment, training, promotion, redundancy and retirement. The campaign, which since last year has included enhanced promotion in Wales and Scotland, has been attracting considerable media coverage. This has resulted in a considerable increase in employer interest across the whole of Great Britain, as well as much increased traffic to the website. A sample survey of employers undertaken by Cranfield School of Management in 2003 indicated that a third of employers believe they have non-ageist policies in place and a further third were planning to adopt non-ageist policies within the coming two years. Copies of the survey have been placed in the Library.

  Benefit Payments
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a)child benefit recipients, (b)pensioners and (c)other benefit recipients received payments (i) into bank accounts, (ii) into Post Office Card Accounts and (iii) through post offices using pension and benefit books in (A) Greater London and (B) each London borough at the most recent date for which figures are available. [158402]

  Mr. Pond
  The available information requested is shown by each London local authority as at 24 January 2004. Child benefit is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and War Pensions are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence.
  1555W

  Recipients of benefits in London local authorities broken down by method of payment

  Total

  Bank accounts

  Percentage of recipients paid by bank account

  Post Office card account

  Percentage of recipients paid by Post Office card account

  Order book

  Percentage of recipients paid by Order book

  Non pensioners

  All London local authorities

  828,255

  417,105

  46.66

  22,625

  2.53

  388,525

  43.46

  Inner London-West

  111,460

  57,920

  48.28

  4,190

  3.49

  49,345

  41.13

  Camden

  28,255

  14,950

  48.64

  790

  2.57

  12,515

  40.73

  City of London

  535

  300

  50.51

  15

  2.71

  220

  37.12

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  20,915

  11,015

  49.35

  1,270

  5.68

  8,630

  38.66

  Kensington and Chelsea

  14,435

  8,010

  52.17

  735

  4.77

  5,690

  37.07

  Wandsworth

  25,365

  12,090

  44.03

  505

  1.85

  12,765

  46.48

  Westminster

  21,960

  11,555

  49.14

  875

  3.72

  9,525

  40.51

  Inner London—East

  280,320

  130,965

  42.86

  9,020

  2.95

  140,330

  45.92

  Hackney

  36,715

  17,565

  44.16

  1,645

  4.13

  17,505

  44.01

  Haringey

  32,610

  15,350

  42.78

  845

  2.35

  16,415

  45.76

  Islington

  30,925

  15,445

  46.42

  1,475

  4.43

  14,005

  42.10

  Lambeth

  37,010

  16,805

  40.52

  1,015

  2.45

  19,195

  46.28

  Lewisham

  32,370

  15,720

  43.48

  685

  1.89

  15,965

  44.15

  Newham

  39,415

  18,175

  43.17

  1,395

  3.32

  19,845

  47.14

  Southwark

  37,510

  17,510

  42.87

  1,095

  2.68

  18,905

  46.28

  Tower Hamlets

  33,765

  14,400

  39.92

  875

  2.42

  18,495

  51.28

  Outer London—East and North East

  178,745

  87,990

  45.99

  3,350

  1.75

  87,410

  45.68

  Barking and Dagenham

  25,100

  10,630

  39.41

  510

  1.89

  13,965

  51.76

  Bexley

  18,845

  10,490

  52.77

  425

  2.14

  7,930

  39.88

  Enfield

  32,615

  16,155

  46.83

  825

  2.40

  15,635

  45.33

  Greenwich

  30,805

  14,350

  42.36

  700

  2.07

  15,760

  46.52

  Havering

  19,870

  10,225

  49.05

  175

  0.84

  9,470

  45.43

  Redbridge

  23,750

  12,650

  51.03

  285

  1.14

  10,815

  43.62

  Waltham Forest

  27,760

  13,490

  44.27

  430

  1.41

  13,840

  45.42

  Outer London—South

  92,090

  49,665

  49.84

  1,600

  1.61

  40,820

  40.96

  Bromley

  23,095

  13,315

  53.61

  695

  2.80

  9,085

  36.59

  Croydon

  32,835

  16,805

  46.97

  495

  1.38

  15,540

  43.44

  Kingston upon Thames

  8,775

  4,875

  51.31

  50

  0.54

  3,850

  40.55

  Merton

  13,785

  7,390

  49.11

  160

  1.07

  6,235

  41.46

  Sutton

  13,595

  7,290

  50.22

  200

  1.37

  6,110

  42.11

  Outer London—West and North West

  165,645

  90,565

  51.05

  4,460

  2.51

  70,620

  39.81

  Barnet

  27,900

  15,590

  52.06

  690

  2.30

  11,620

  38.80

  Brent

  32,805

  17,980

  50.71

  1,220

  3.44

  13,605

  38.37

  Ealing

  33,155

  18,100

  51.38

  1,370

  3.89

  13,680

  38.84

  Harrow

  17,120

  9,665

  52.83

  130

  0.71

  7,320

  40.02

  Hillingdon

  21,985

  10,680

  45.04

  165

  0.69

  11,140

  46.96

  Hounslow

  22,890

  12,650

  51.96

  700

  2.87

  9,540

  39.19

  Richmond upon Thames

  9,795

  5,895

  56.56

  190

  1.80

  3,715

  35.64

  Pensioners

  All London local authorities

  1,193,680

  683,865

  56.94

  6,540

  0.54

  503,275

  41.91

  Inner London—West

  139,105

  82,270

  58.66

  540

  0.39

  56,295

  40.14

  Camden

  28,155

  16,235

  57.23

  105

  0.37

  11,815

  41.64

  City of London

  1,095

  820

  74.89

  0

  0.18

  270

  24.84

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  23,460

  13,110

  55.47

  125

  0.53

  10,220

  43.24

  Kensington and Chelsea

  22,040

  15,210

  68.11

  70

  0.32

  6,755

  30.26

  Wandsworth

  36,145

  19,360

  53.29

  165

  0.45

  16,620

  45.74

  Westminster

  28,215

  17,535

  61.55

  70

  0.25

  10,610

  37.25

  Inner London—East

  247,080

  111,290

  44.79

  1,360

  0.55

  134,435

  54.11

  Hackney

  26,940

  10,535

  38.88

  140

  0.52

  16,260

  60.00

  Haringey

  29,875

  15,365

  51.08

  125

  0.42

  14,385

  47.81

  Islington

  25,225

  10,170

  40.12

  185

  0.73

  14,870

  58.65

  Lambeth

  32,680

  16,345

  49.72

  150

  0.46

  16,185

  49.22

  Lewisham

  37,080

  18,485

  49.62

  270

  0.72

  18,325

  49.19

  Newham

  34,670

  15,740

  45.10

  220

  0.62

  18,715

  53.61

  Southwark

  33,235

  15,465

  46.31

  165

  0.50

  17,600

  52.70

  Tower Hamlets

  27,380

  9,175

  33.37

  105

  0.38

  18,100

  65.82

  Outer London—East and North East

  299,935

  163,500

  54.27

  2,210

  0.73

  134,225

  44.55

  Barking and Dagenham

  31,055

  12,480

  40.04

  230

  0.74

  18,345

  58.86

  Bexley

  46,295

  27,615

  59.45

  465

  1.00

  18,220

  39.22

  Enfield

  51,420

  30,210

  58.38

  265

  0.51

  20,945

  40.48

  Greenwich

  36,440

  18,280

  49.98

  315

  0.86

  17,845

  48.80

  Havering

  52,740

  29,500

  55.75

  485

  0.92

  22,750

  42.99

  Redbridge

  44,350

  25,935

  58.18

  225

  0.50

  18,190

  40.81

  Waltham Forest

  37,635

  19,480

  51.49

  225

  0.60

  17,925

  47.38

  Outer London—South

  212,300

  136,705

  64.00

  1,285

  0.60

  74,310

  34.79

  Bromley

  66,035

  44,310

  66.69

  380

  0.57

  21,345

  32.13

  Croydon

  57,090

  36,205

  63.07

  380

  0.66

  20,500

  35.71

  Kingston upon Thames

  25,015

  16,610

  66.00

  135

  0.54

  8,270

  32.85

  1556W 1557W

  Recipients of benefits in London local authorities broken down by method of payment

  Total

  Bank accounts

  Percentage of recipients paid by bank account

  Post Office card account

  Percentage of recipients paid by Post Office card account

  Order book

  Percentage of recipients paid by Order book

  Merton

  29,870

  17,990

  59.80

  165

  0.55

  11,715

  38.94

  Sutton

  34,290

  21,590

  62.57

  220

  0.63

  12,480

  36.17

  Outer London—West and North West

  295,260

  190,100

  63.93

  1,145

  0.39

  104,015

  34.98

  Barnet

  56,620

  37,880

  66.27

  175

  0.30

  18,565

  32.48

  Brent

  39,965

  23,465

  58.34

  185

  0.46

  16,315

  40.57

  Ealing

  50,815

  32,095

  62.73

  235

  0.46

  18,485

  36.13

  Harrow

  39,440

  27,220

  68.50

  115

  0.29

  12,105

  30.47

  Hillingdon

  43,780

  27,630

  62.77

  200

  0.46

  15,950

  36.24

  Hounslow

  34,825

  21,255

  60.72

  130

  0.37

  13,440

  38.40

  Richmond upon Thames

  29,820

  20,565

  68.43

  105

  0.35

  9,150

  30.45

  Notes:

  1. Figures refer to a snapshot of live accounts in payment on 24 January 2004.

  2. The figures relate to number of accounts not claimants, (a customer may be in receipt of more than one benefit)

  3. Some bank/building society accounts can be used at a Post Office to access money.

  4. For confidentiality reasons, all figures are rounded to the nearest

  5. Figures may therefore not sum to the totals shown

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. sample

  Care Grants
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money has been allocated in care grants in each year since 1999(a)in total for England and (b)broken down by local authority. [157370]

  Mr. Pond
  The available information for England is in the table.

  Community Care Grant budget and expenditure for England since 1999

  £

  Initial budget

  Contingency Reserve allocation

  Total allocation

  Expenditure

  1999–2000

  77.14

  0.34

  77.48

  77.38

  2000–01

  78.71

  0.26

  78.97

  78.87

  2001–02

  80.95

  0.21

  81.15

  80.62

  2002–03

  84.91

  0.81

  85.72

  85.02

  2003–04

  92.72

  0.36

  93.08

  –

  Notes:

  1. All figures are given in millions.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest £0.01 million.

  3. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  4. The Contingency Reserve allocation for 2003–04 is the allocation so far this year.

  Source:

  DWP figures; Social Fund Policy Budget and Management

  Information System

  The information is not available at local authority level.

  Initial budgets and contingency reserve allocations are set at Social Fund/Jobcentre Plus district level. Information regarding all district initial budgets and contingency reserve allocations are available in the Library; this includes information regarding the impact of boundary changes made in 2002–03.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are claiming Council Tax Benefit. [159916]
  1558W
  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  As at August 2003, 4,657,400 households were in receipt of Council Tax Benefit in Great Britain.
  Source:
  DWP Data 100 per cent. sample (figures rounded to nearest hundred).

  Ministerial Speeches
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many speeches he made between 9 June 2003 and 1 February 2004; and where a copy of each speech can be obtained. [156148]

  Mr.Andrew Smith
  I and members of the Government make a number of speeches on a wide range of domestic and international issues. Copies of my speeches are available on the Departmental website at www. dwp.gov.uk (contained within the Media Centre then Ministers Speeches).

  Westminster Hall
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make it his policy to have senior Ministers reply to debates in Westminster Hall. [159614]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer my hon. Member to the Written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on 8 March 2004,Official Report, column 1234W.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have requested application forms for winter fuel payments via e-mail in each year since the facility became available. [159851]

  Malcolm Wicks
  During the 2002–03 Winter Fuel Payment exercise there were 250 requests for a Winter
  1559W
  Fuel Payment claim form via e-mail. To date for this winter 2003–04 there have been 410 requests for a Winter Fuel Payment claim form via e-mail.

  Funding (Dorset)
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what grants were awarded to local 1560W
  authorities in Dorset by his Department in financial year 2003–04 that fall outside the revenue support grant. [156203]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government on 1 March 2004,Official Report,column 750W.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  "Reducing Crime, Changing Lives"
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of NAPO to discuss the implications of the Carter Report; and when he next plans to meet NAPO representatives on this subject. [155614]

  Paul Goggins
  As the Minister responsible for the Probation Service I meet at least twice a year with representatives of the relevant trade unions, including National Association of Probation Officers in the Ministerial Trade Union Forum. The last meeting was held on 17 December prior to the publication of Patrick Carter's report and the Home Office response, "Reducing Crime—Changing Lives".

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation took place, and for what period, on the plans contained in, "Reducing Crime, Changing Lives". [155840]

  Paul Goggins
  "Reducing Crime, Changing Lives" was published on 6 January. The closing date for responses was 3 March.

  "The Old and the New" Report
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will implement the recommendations of the report The New and the Old from the Life in the United Kingdom Advisory Group. [159239]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written Ministerial Statement made by my right hon. Friend, Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 2 February 2004.Official Report,column WS13, and to the related papers deposited in the Library, which set out the steps we are taking to implement the recommendations of the report.

  EU Accession States
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the statement by the Home Secretary on 23 February 2004,Official Report,columns 23–36, on immigration from the accession states, what assessment he has made of the impact of the policy on the recruitment of health care professionals to work in the UK. [158585]

  Beverley Hughes
  Relevantly qualified healthcare professionals from the EU accession states will be able to work in the United Kingdom after accession.

  All nationals from Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania who find work in the UK will be required to apply to register with the Home Office under the new 'Worker Registration Scheme' as soon as they find work. This should have no impact on the ability of the NHS to recruit health care professionals from EU accession states.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) to whom and how often employers will be required to forward the number of EU accession citizens in their employ; whether employers 1562W
  will be permitted to charge the employee for such registrations; and whether employers will be fined if they fail to keep such information up-to-date; [156980]

  (2)whether the issuing of a worker's registration certificate will enable a citizen of an EU accession state to look for work in the United Kingdom if employment is not already guaranteed; [156982]

  (3)who will issue the registration certificate enabling EU accession nationals to work in the UK; and whether there will be a charge for such a certificate; [156992]

  (4)when the work registration certificates enabling EU accession states citizens to work in the UK will begin to be issued; for how long such a certificate will enable the holder to seek work; and whether it will be necessary for such certificates to be re-applied for should the holder move to another part of the UK from that in which their initial employment was found. [156998]

  Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated in his statement to the House on 23 February 2003,Official Report columns 23–25, that, from 1 May, accession country nationals will have free movement across EU borders. They will not be required to apply for entry clearance to travel to the United Kingdom in search of work. With the exception of Malta and Cyprus, citizens of the new member states will need to register with the Home Office when they find a job in the UK, providing information about where and for whom they are working. Employers will be required to satisfy themselves that accession country nationals in their employ apply for and receive registration under scheme.

  The registration scheme will be run by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. The Directorate is looking into whether all or part of the administrative costs of the scheme could be recovered through charges.

  Registration under the scheme will be issued for 12 months, and within that period will be valid for as long as the worker is in the registered employment. The worker should apply to renew the registration if he or she finds a job with a new employer. Registration under the scheme will apply only to workers in the United Kingdom, not to those who are not working.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions he plans to introduce to prevent unwanted mass immigration after accession of Eastern European countries to the EU in May. [153097]

  Beverley Hughes
  Based on research and experience of previous accession, the Home Office does not expect migration from the accession countries after May 1 to be at levels which would damage the labour market. Measures to ensure we can both monitor the impact on the labour market and prevent access to work-seeking benefits, child benefit and housing support were announced by my right hon. friend the Home Secretary to the House of Commons on 23 February 2004,Official Report,columns 23—25, in which he outlined the regulations the Government will be bringing forward to ensure that income related benefits, housing support and child benefit are not abused.
  1563W
  Accession state nationals who want to work in the UK will be required to register as a worker once they have found a job. This will allow the Government to very closely monitor the numbers of people coming to work in the UK.

  In the unexpected event of a large influx of workers to the UK, which threatened the level of employment or standard of living in a particular region or occupation we would impose restrictions on workers.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place between his Department and its counterparts in the new EU accession states regarding the security of peripheral EU borders. [157576]

  Beverley Hughes
  Home Office Ministers and officials have discussed the security of periphery EU borders with accession state counterparts on many occasions over the past 12 months (and longer), both bilaterally and within the EU framework. These discussions will continue during the lead up to formal accession in May and beyond.

  Examples of these discussions include the recent bilateral meetings between my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and Polish and Hungarian counterparts; a joint UK-Finnish border management conference attended by all 13 accession and candidate countries; bilateral technical co-operation meetings with Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Malta, Poland and Slovenia; a UK-hosted seminar on justice and home affairs issues attended by all accession states; and UK participation in border control projects in Malta and Poland.

  Foreign Nationals
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals entered the UK in each year since 1997. [157583]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available information is given in the table.

  Passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom, excluding EEA nationals: 1997–2002

  Number of journeys1(million)

  1997

  10.9

  1998

  11.5

  1999

  12.0

  20002

  13.0

  20012

  12.8

  2002

  12.6

  1Includes people granted leave to enter the UK in the year shown but who may have been temporarily admitted in previous years.

  2A change in procedures may have resulted in some under-recording for the fourth quarter of 2000 and the first quarter of 2001.

  Data on passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom are published in the Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2002" (Cm6053), obtainable from the House Library, the Stationery Office and via the Home Office website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hobpubs1. html.
  1564W

  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Anti-Social Behaviour Orders have been issued, broken down by(a)region of offender and (b)age of offender since their inception; and how many of these offenders have since been sentenced to custody. [158842]

  Ms Blears
  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) were introduced from 1 April 1999 on application to the magistrates court acting in its civil capacity. The Police Reform Act (2002) authorised the magistrates courts and the Crown court to issue ASBOs on conviction, and the county courts (from 1 April 2003), to issue ASBOs on application. Data are given in table A of numbers of ASBOs issued, at all courts, as reported to the Home Office, by court type, area and age, up to 30 September 2003 (latest available).

  In table B data are given, by age group and area, from 1 June 2000 up to 31 December 2002 (latest available) on breaches of ASBOs resulting in a custodial sentence.

  Table A: Number of anti-social behaviour orders issued at all courts, as reported to the Home Office, from 1 April 1999 to 30 September 2003, by court type, age and area: England and Wales

  MCC/Police force area

  Total issued

  10–17

  Age 18 and over

  Unknown1

  Magistrates Court

  Avon and Somerset

  45

  15

  19

  11

  Bedfordshire

  16

  5

  10

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  22

  13

  4

  5

  Cheshire

  33

  14

  19

  —

  Cleveland

  23

  18

  4

  1

  Cumbria

  28

  10

  17

  1

  Derbyshire

  21

  6

  12

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  18

  7

  10

  1

  Dorset

  5

  5

  —

  —

  Durham

  28

  15

  13

  —

  Essex

  4

  3

  1

  —

  Gloucestershire

  9

  6

  3

  —

  GLMCA/Metropolitan Police2

  113

  37

  56

  20

  Greater Manchester

  240

  161

  66

  13

  Hampshire

  37

  20

  16

  1

  Hertfordshire

  26

  16

  8

  2

  Humberside

  19

  6

  11

  2

  Kent

  42

  25

  17

  —

  Lancashire

  56

  39

  11

  6

  Leicestershire

  7

  5

  1

  1

  Lincolnshire

  7

  4

  3

  —

  Merseyside

  66

  37

  21

  8

  Norfolk

  30

  11

  7

  12

  Northamptonshire

  9

  8

  1

  —

  Northumbria

  53

  22

  23

  8

  North Yorkshire

  13

  6

  3

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  26

  11

  14

  1

  South Yorkshire

  44

  19

  22

  3

  Staffordshire

  38

  20

  17

  1

  Suffolk

  27

  14

  10

  3

  Surrey

  10

  6

  3

  1

  Sussex

  39

  23

  12

  4

  Thames Valley

  21

  7

  8

  6

  Warwickshire

  25

  16

  9

  —

  West Mercia

  100

  45

  50

  5

  West Midlands

  154

  54

  74

  26

  West Yorkshire

  82

  55

  23

  4

  Wiltshire

  3

  2

  1

  —

  England

  1,539

  786

  599

  154

  Dyfed Powys

  11

  —

  11

  —

  Gwent

  8

  5

  3

  —

  North Wales

  15

  10

  5

  —

  South Wales

  25

  12

  13

  —

  Wales

  59

  27

  32

  0

  1565W

  Table A: Number of anti-social behaviour orders issued at all courts, as reported to the Home Office, from 1 April 1999 to 30 September 2003, by court type, age and area: England and Wales

  MCC/Police force area

  Total issued

  10–17

  Age 18 and over

  Unknown1

  England and Wales MCC/ PFA

  1,598

  813

  631

  154

  County Court Group

  County Court

  London

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Merseyside

  1

  —

  1

  —

  England and Wales County Court Group

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Crown Court Circuit

  Crown Court

  Midland

  4

  2

  2

  —

  Northern

  5

  1

  4

  —

  Table B: Number of breaches1of an anti-social behaviour order reported to the Home office from 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2002— England and Wales

  ASBOs issued Age

  ASBOs breached Age

  MCC/Police force area

  Total

  10–17

  18 and over

  Unknown

  Total

  10–17

  18 and over

  Unknown

  Avon and Somerset

  25

  10

  13

  2

  7

  4

  23

  —

  Bedfordshire

  8

  2

  5

  1

  6

  3

  3

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  3

  2

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  16

  8

  8

  —

  7

  5

  2

  —

  Cleveland

  13

  12

  1

  —

  7

  6

  1

  —

  Cumbria

  15

  4

  10

  1

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Derbyshire

  15

  5

  10

  —

  9

  3

  6

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  11

  5

  6

  —

  4

  1

  3

  —

  Dorset

  4

  4

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Durham

  21

  12

  9

  —

  16

  9

  7

  —

  Essex

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  5

  3

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  GLMCA/Metropolitan Police3

  51

  23

  18

  10

  17

  8

  29

  —

  Greater Manchester

  104

  73

  28

  3

  30

  24

  26

  —

  Hampshire

  15

  10

  5

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  16

  10

  5

  1

  5

  1

  24

  —

  Humberside

  16

  6

  8

  2

  5

  4

  1

  —

  Kent

  36

  21

  15

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  23

  17

  6

  —

  10

  5

  5

  —

  Leicestershire

  5

  4

  1

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  3

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  21

  —

  Merseyside

  32

  23

  9

  —

  6

  3

  3

  —

  Norfolk

  19

  7

  6

  6

  8

  3

  25

  —

  Northamptonshire

  9

  8

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Northumbria

  30

  17

  13

  —

  11

  4

  27

  —

  North Yorkshire

  7

  4

  3

  —

  6

  2

  24

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  16

  5

  11

  —

  8

  2

  6

  —

  South Yorkshire

  24

  13

  11

  —

  8

  5

  23

  —

  Staffordshire

  22

  10

  11

  1

  6

  2

  4

  —

  Suffolk

  9

  8

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Surrey

  6

  4

  1

  1

  3

  —

  23

  —

  Sussex

  23

  15

  7

  1

  5

  4

  1

  —

  Thames Valley

  14

  4

  5

  5

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Warwickshire

  18

  12

  6

  —

  8

  4

  4

  —

  West Mercia

  75

  34

  41

  —

  25

  12

  213

  —

  West Midlands

  93

  42

  36

  15

  42

  25

  17

  —

  West Yorkshire

  29

  21

  8

  —

  13

  9

  4

  —

  Wiltshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  England

  836

  464

  323

  49

  294

  164

  130

  —

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  4

  4

  —

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  North Wales

  8

  5

  3

  —

  5

  2

  3

  —

  South Wales

  7

  1

  6

  —

  3

  1

  2

  —

  Wales

  19

  10

  9

  0

  11

  6

  5

  —

  Total England and Wales

  855

  474

  332

  49

  305

  170

  135

  —

  1566W

  Table A: Number of anti-social behaviour orders issued at all courts, as reported to the Home Office, from 1 April 1999 to 30 September 2003, by court type, age and area: England and Wales

  MCC/Police force area

  Total issued

  10–17

  Age 18 and over

  Unknown1

  North Eastern

  3

  —

  3

  —

  South Eastern

  1

  —

  1

  —

  South Eastern Provincial

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Western

  7

  2

  5

  —

  Wales and Chester

  1

  —

  1

  —

  England and Wales CC Circuits

  23

  5

  18

  —

  Total all courts England ant Wales

  1,623

  818

  651

  154

  1From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 data collected by police force area on numbers issued only.

  2Including City of London.

  1567W

  Custodial sentence given4

  MCC/Police force area

  Total

  10–17

  Age 18 and over

  Unknown

  Avon and Somerset

  4

  1

  23

  —

  Bedfordshire

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  5

  4

  1

  —

  Cleveland

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Cumbria

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Derbyshire

  4

  2

  2

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  2

  1

  1

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  10

  3

  27

  —

  Essex

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  GLMCA/Metropolitan

  Police3

  11

  3

  28

  —

  Greater Manchester

  21

  16

  25

  —

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  2

  2

  —

  Humberside

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  5

  2

  3

  —

  Leicestershire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  6

  3

  3

  —

  Norfolk

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Northamptonshire

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Northumbria

  3

  —

  3

  —

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  4

  1

  3

  —

  South Yorkshire

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  4

  1

  3

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  1

  —

  21

  —

  Sussex

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  1

  —

  1

  —

  West Mercia

  16

  6

  10

  —

  West Midlands

  25

  12

  13

  —

  West Yorkshire

  6

  3

  23

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England

  149

  69

  80

  0

  Dyfed Powys

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  1

  1

  —

  —

  North Wales

  1

  1

  —

  —

  South Wales

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Wales

  3

  2

  1

  0

  Total England and Wales

  152

  71

  81

  0

  1Breaches are counted in this table on a persons basis, i.e. multiple breaches (occurring at the same time), or where the order has been breached on more than one occasion, are all counted as one breach.

  2Includes breaches where the ASBO recipient was a juvenile when the order was given.

  3Including City of London.

  4Excluding two persons given a fully suspended sentence and five cases where a sentence of one day in police cells was given.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the use of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders as a means of fighting prostitution. [159458]

  Caroline Flint
  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders have been used in several parts of England and Wales to tackle the anti-social behaviour resulting from prostitution. They are only one of the tools available to tackle anti-social behaviour, and anecdotal evidence suggests that they are more effective in dealing with the anti-social effects of prostitution when used together with support to help sex workers exit prostitution. Work is currently under way to scope the issues around prostitution and this will consider the effectiveness of all means of dealing with prostitution.
  1568W
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those applying for Anti-Social Behaviour Orders in the past year have been registered social landlords. [159459]

  Ms Blears
  The Police Reform Act (December 2002) empowered registered social landlords to apply for Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) directly. Data are collected on the type of applicant only on those orders issued in the magistrates court, acting in its civil capacity, and within the county courts. Orders can also be made following conviction of an offence in the criminal courts—there is no applicant for these orders.

  From 1 December 2002 up to 30 September 2003 (latest available), 13 of the 715 applications for ASBOs, as reported to the Home Office, have been made by registered social landlords. All were issued.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Anti-Social Behaviour Orders have been issued to those under the age of 18 in the past year. [159462]

  Ms Blears
  Information is given in the following table.

  Number of anti-social behaviour orders issued, at all courts, by age and period, as reported to the Home Office, from 1 January 2002 to 30 September 2003 (latest available) England and Wales

  Age

  1 January 2002 to 30 November 2002

  1 December 20021to 30 September 2003

  10–17

  205

  371

  18 and over

  130

  334

  Unknown

  23

  1

  Total

  358

  706

  1Following introduction of the Police Reform Act (December 2002) data for December 2002 have been included in the first quarter 2003.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted for breach of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [159679]

  Ms Blears
  The available information relating to breaches of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), within England and Wales, covers the period 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2002. Of the total number of 329 persons prosecuted for breach of an ASBO during this period, 305 persons were found guilty.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Anti-Social Behaviour Orders have been issued by (a) Merseyside Police and (b) local authorities in Merseyside in each of the last five years. [159596]

  Ms Blears
  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) were introduced from 1 April 1999 on application, by the Police or Local Authority, to the magistrates' court acting in its civil capacity. The Police Reform Act (2002) authorised the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court to issue ASBOs on conviction, and the county courts (from 1 April 2003), to issue ASBOs on application. Data are given in the table of numbers of ASBOs issued, at all courts, within Merseyside, up to 30 September 2003 (latest available).
  1569W
  Data are collected on the type of applicant on those orders only issued in the magistrates court, acting in its civil capacity, and within the county courts. Orders can also be made following conviction of an offence in the

  Number of ASBOs, issued within Merseyside, at all courts, by period and applicant. 1 April 1999 to 30 September 2003

  Applications by

  Issued where the applicant was

  Period

  Police

  Local authority

  County courts

  Total

  Police

  Local authority

  County courts

  Total

  Issued on conviction

  1 April 1999 to 31 May 20001

  2—

  2—

  3—

  12

  2—

  2—

  3—

  8

  3—

  1 June 2000 to 31 December 2000

  2

  1

  3—

  3

  2

  1

  3—

  3

  3—

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  0

  7

  3—

  7

  0

  7

  3—

  7

  3—

  1 January 2002 to 30 November 2002

  0

  22

  3—

  22

  0

  22

  3—

  22

  3—

  1 December 2002 to 30 September 2003

  4

  23

  3—

  27

  4

  22

  1

  27

  0

  Total

  4

  53

  2—

  71

  6

  52

  1

  67

  0

  1From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 data was collected by police force area only on numbers issued or refused.

  2Not available.

  3Not applicable.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of provision for(a)the processing of asylum applications and (b)the housing of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland. [157969]

  Beverley Hughes
  The UK Immigration Service has staff based at Belfast International Airport part of whose responsibility is to screen new asylum applicants encountered in Northern Ireland.

  After screening, new applicants are normally interviewed by staff from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's Asylum Casework Group to determine whether they have a valid claim, as is the procedure elsewhere in the UK.

  The number of asylum applications received in Northern Ireland is relatively low and I am confident that the numbers of staff and facilities available for this work is commensurate with the current level of demand.

  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has responsibility for housing those asylum seekers who are supported by the National Asylum Support Service. These asylum seekers are referred to the Housing Executive by the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities. The National Asylum Support Service does not disperse asylum seekers to Northern Ireland and the numbers supported there are low. Accommodation is provided to acceptable standards and is subject to housing inspections.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many travellers were subject to immigration control at(a)Heathrow and (b)all other UK ports in each of the last five years for which there are records; and of these, what proportion were referred to medical inspectors (i) at Heathrow and (ii) at other ports. [156845]

  Beverley Hughes
  The figures for travellers subject to immigration control and who were granted leave to enter at(a)Heathrow and (b)all other UK ports in each of the last five years are as follows.
  1570W
  criminal courts—there is no applicant for these orders. Where applicable, data on the type of applicant are given in the table.

  Passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom, excluding European Economic area (EEA) nationals, 1998 to 20021: United Kingdom

  Number of journeys (million)

  Heathrow

  Other ports

  Total

  1998

  6.7

  4.8

  11.5

  1999

  6.8

  5.2

  12.0

  2000

  7.4

  5.6

  13.0

  2001

  7.4

  5.4

  12.8

  20021

  7.7

  4.9

  12.6

  1Provisional.

  Notes:

  1. The data are of the number of journeys made; a person who makes more than one journey is counted on each occasion.

  2. Long-standing policy is that any person subject to immigration control who:

  (i) mentions health or medical treatment as a reason for coming to the United Kingdom, or appears unwell; or

  (ii) is seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom for six months or more and is at high risk of having been exposed to tuberculosis should be referred by the immigration officer to a medical inspector.

  The Department of Health does not collect data on the number of referrals for medical inspection. Data supplied by Heathrow and Gatwick health control units indicates the following number of referrals over the previous five years:

  Heathrow

  Gatwick

  1998–99

  72,079

  Not known

  1999–2000

  88,079

  7,705

  2000–01

  108,170

  5,845

  2001–02

  148,619

  6,960

  2002–03

  164,655

  3,745

  Since these figures relate to financial years and those for travellers calendar years it is not possible to determine the actual proportion of travellers who were referred to the medical inspector.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether an on site nurse forms part of the service contracted by the National Asylum Support Service from Angel Heights, Newcastle; and whether this contract provides for female support workers as a result of a recent change in clients; [157044]
  1571W
  (2) what payments his Department has made to NHS agencies and services in Newcastle in this financial year in respect of asylum seeker dispersal support. [157045]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office is not responsible for providing funding to NHS agencies to meet the costs of providing medical treatment to asylum seekers who have been dispersed. The National Asylum Support System does not provide on site nurses in any of its dispersal accommodation.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a)successful and (b)unsuccessful asylum applications there have been from Ethiopian citizens in the last live years; and how many of the unsuccessful applicants have been deported. [157650]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the number of asylum applications and initial decisions for nationals of Ethiopia (excluding dependants) in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. Initial decisions do not necessarily relate to applications received in the same period.

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions1,2,3, by year, nationals of Ethiopia

  Principal applicants

  1999

  2000

  20014

  20025

  20035

  Applications received

  455

  415

  610

  700

  640

  Initial decisions

  Total initial decisions

  260

  895

  1,175

  705

  740

  Cases considered under normal procedures

  Grants of asylum

  20

  40

  90

  50

  15

  Grants of ELR

  5

  80

  240

  170

  40

  Grants of HP

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Grants of DL

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  95

  Total refusals

  35

  355

  845

  485

  590

  Backlog clearance exercise

  Grants of ELR under backlog criteria6,7

  190

  390

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria6,8

  10

  30

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a = not applicable.

  1Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  2Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications received in the same period.

  3Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  4Revised figures.

  5Provisional figures.

  6Cases decided under pragmatic measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum backlog.

  7May include a small number of cases where asylum has been granted.

  8May include a small number of cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  The table shows the available data, for outcomes of adjudicator appeals at the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) for nationals of Ethiopia in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Appeals may relate to initial decisions made in earlier periods. Corresponding information on appeals to the Immigration Appellate Tribunal (IAT) relating to Ethiopian nationals (including appeals made by the Secretary of State) is not available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case files. Data on the nationality of appeals made in 1999 and 2000 are not available.
  1572W

  Outcome of appeals1,2determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority, excluding dependants, nationals of Ethiopia, 2001 to 2003

  Number of principal appellants

  Appeals determined by adjudicators

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Total determined

  265

  615

  1,060

  Allowed

  Total

  110

  230

  325

  As percentage of determined

  42

  37

  31

  Dismissed

  Total

  140

  340

  685

  As percentage of determined

  53

  55

  65

  Withdrawn

  Total

  15

  50

  50

  As percentage of determined

  6

  8

  5

  1Provisional figures rounded to nearest 5 (except percentages). Figures may not add up due to independent rounding. Data on appeal outcomes by nationality in this table are derived from Immigration and Nationality Directorate electronic sources.

  2Figures include cases withdrawn by the Home Office, as well as the appellant.

  Deportations are a specific subset of removals alongside persons subject to administrative removal, removal due to illegal entry action or those refused entry at port and subsequently removed.

  Estimates of the number of nationals of Ethiopia who had sought asylum at some stage and who were removed from the UK between January 2001 and September 2003 (the latest date for which figures are available) are shown in the table. These figures include persons departing 'voluntarily' after the initiation of enforcement action against them, and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Returns Programmes run by the International Organization for Migration. Removals do not necessarily relate to initial decisions made in the same period. Data on the nationality of removals made in 1999 and 2000 are not available.

  Removals and voluntary1departures of principal asylum applicants (excluding dependants), nationals of Ethiopia2,3,4

  Number

  2001

  10

  2002

  10

  January to September 2003

  *

  1Includes persons departing "voluntarily" after enforcement action had been initiated against them, persons leaving under Assisted voluntary return programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration, and removals on safe third country grounds.

  2Figures rounded to the nearest five, with "*" = 1 or 2.

  3Data have been estimated due to data quality issues.

  4 Provisional figures

  Information on asylum applications, initial decisions, appeals and removals are published quarterly. The current publication covering the fourth quarter of 2003, and provisional 2003 data, is available on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1 .html. Data on the nationality of removals are published a quarter in arrears. Data for the final quarter of 2003 will be published at the end of May.

  Cannabis
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in Greater London have been(a)fined and (b)given a prison sentence for

  Persons1fined and sentenced to immediate custody2for cannabis related offences in Greater London3

  Greater London, 1998 to 2002

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Offence

  Persons fined

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody

  Persons fined

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody

  Persons fined

  Supplying or offering to supply (or being concerned in supplying or offering to supply) cannabis

  24

  66

  10

  65

  6

  Possession of cannabis with intent to supply

  42

  230

  31

  192

  15

  Production of or being concerned in the production of cannabis

  75

  19

  43

  23

  30

  Possession of cannabis

  4,044

  71

  3,804

  61

  3,487

  2001

  2002

  Offence

  Persons fined

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody

  Persons fined

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody

  Supplying or offering to supply (or being concerned in supplying or offering to supply) cannabis

  9

  36

  9

  44

  Possession of cannabis with intent to supply

  22

  106

  35

  105

  Production of or being concerned in the production of cannabis

  27

  22

  34

  12

  Possession of cannabis

  3,238

  43

  4,120

  45

  1These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2Includes unsuspended imprisonment, secure training orders, detention in a young offender institution and detention and training orders.

  3Includes Metropolitan and City of London police forces.

  Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which staff organisations and trade unions were consulted by Patrick Carter during his inquiry into the Connexions services.[155838]

  Paul Goggins
  Patrick Carter's report "Managing Offenders-Reducing Crime" was an independent review of the correctional services. The Government's response "Reducing Crime-Changing Lives" seeks views from stakeholders on a number of issues relating to the management of offenders.

  Convicted Defendants
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted defendants there were in the last three years, broken down by ethnic origin; what proportion of convicted defendants were sent to prison, broken down by ethnic origin; and if he will make a statement. [158704]

  Paul Goggins
  Information on the ethnic origin of convicted defendants is only currently available for magistrates courts in six pilot areas. This information was included in "Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2002" and in earlier years, available on the Home Office website: http://www.homeoffice. gov.uk/rds/pdfs/s95race2002.pdf.

  Coroners' inquiries
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken is to arrange a coroner's inquiry into a death. [155684]
  1574W
  (i) supplying, (ii) trafficking and (iii) possession of cannabis in each of the last five years. [159220]

  Caroline Flint
  The available information is contained in the table.

  Paul Goggins
  In 2002, the average time taken to process art inquest, from the time the death was reported to the coroner, until the time the inquest was concluded, was four months. The average time taken for the coroner to issue a certificate permitting a body to be released for burial or other disposal, in cases where an inquest was subsequently held, was seven clays.

  Crime Reduction Policy
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress made towards local crime reduction targets in each area participating in the Small Retailers in Deprived Areas scheme. [160202]

  Ms Blears
  In June 2001, the Home Secretary announced funding of £15 million over three years for a project to improve the security of small retailers in the 10 most deprived areas throughout England and Wales.

  Individual projects are developed by local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships in conjunction with Regional Home Office Directors. Part of this process is to ensure adequate local targets have been set, and systems put in place to measure performance against them.

  A detailed evaluation of the scheme is currently under way and will be completed in the autumn. The findings, which will be widely disseminated, will identify effective interventions that have been shown to have a beneficial impact on crime against small retailers. The evaluation will also examine other ways in which the scheme has impacted upon businesses and the surrounding retail environment—such as the fear of crime among business, fear of crime among customers, business viability and partnership working.

  Criminal Prosecutions (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a)successful and (b)unsuccessful criminal prosecutions were brought for crimes perpetrated in each Lancashire constituency in each of the last three years; [157681]

  (2) how many criminal charges were pressed for crimes perpetrated in Chorley in each of the last three years. [157682]

  Paul Goggins
  Statistics on those charged with offences are not collected centrally, nor is it possible to break down the court proceedings data collected centrally to constituency level.

  The following table, however, gives the numbers of defendants (a)convicted and (b)not convicted in the Lancashire Police Force area as a whole:

  Defendants convicted and those not convicted of offences of all types at all courts in the Lancashire police force area, 2000–02

  Defendants convicted

  Dafendants not convicted1

  2000

  49,625

  19,729

  2001

  48,077

  19,441

  2002

  48,259

  19,781

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

  Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Cyclists (Prosecution)
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cyclists were prosecuted for failure to comply with legal requirements in respect of road use in the UK in each of the last five years. [156553]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of defendants proceeded against for pedal cycle offences in England and Wales 1998 to 2002 is as follows:

  Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for all pedal cycle offences1, England and wales 1998 to 2002

  Proceeded against

  1998

  2,380

  1999

  1,487

  2000

  1,023

  2001

  760

  2002

  636

  1These data are on the principal offence basis.

  Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn. Information for Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Office and that for Northern Ireland for the Northern Ireland Office.

  Disorder Penalty Notices
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many penalty notices for disorder have been issued by police forces during the pilot period. [160061]

  Ms Blears
  Pilots for penalty notices for disorder operated between August 2002 and September 2003 in four police force areas involving five police forces: West 1576W
  Midlands (force wide), Essex (force wide), North Wales (initially in their Central division then force wide from April 2003), Metropolitan (Croydon division) and British Transport Police (West Midlands area). Just over 6,000 penalty notices for disorder were issued during the pilots.

  DNA Investigation Techniques
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when DNA low copy number first became available as a product for use in assisting the investigation of cold calls; and if he will make a statement. [159698]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 March 2004]:A DNA low copy number product first became available for investigation of both cold and current cases in January 1999.

  Driving Convictions
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for(a)causing death by dangerous driving, (b)dangerous driving and (c)careless driving there were in (i) Greater London and (ii) each London borough in each of the last five years. [158408]

  Caroline Flint
  Available information for the years 1997 to 2001 is given in the table. It is not possible from the data collected centrally to identify each London Borough within the geographical area of Greater London.

  2002 data will be available in the Spring.

  Findings of guilt at all courts for specific offences, Greater London police1, 1997–2001

  Offence

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Causing death by dangerous driving3

  16

  24

  22

  23

  Dangerous driving4

  484

  419

  384

  444

  Careless driving5

  10,067

  9,203

  8.172

  6.168

  1Figures amended since publication of the Home Office'Offences relating to motor vehicles England and Wales 2001 Supplementary tables'.

  2Offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988, s1 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 s1 and Criminal Justice Act 1993 s67.

  3Offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 s2 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 s2.

  4Offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 s3. ss 12(1), 26(2), 33(3)and 168; Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 Regs 19,104–107 and 109.

  European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who the Chairperson and members of the Executive Board of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia are. [157297]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Under the Executive Board of the European Monitoring Centre (EUMC) governing regulation, its Executive Board is composed of the Chairman of the EUMC Management Board, the Vice-Chairman and up to three other members of the Management Board, including the person appointed by the Council of Europe and the representative of the European Commission.
  1577W
  The members of the current Executive Board are Robert Purkiss (Chairman), Petros Stangos (Vice-Chairman), Helene Loow, Joseph Voyame (Council of Europe) and Bernhard Jansen (European Commission).

  We understand that a new Executive Board will be elected by the Management Board at its meeting in June.

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the oral answer of 19 January 2004,Official Report, column 1073, on the Forensic Science Service, whether the £20 million to £30 million sum mentioned is (a)a one off capital cost and (b)a recurring annual revenue cost. [159879]

  Ms BlearsM
  [holding answer 9 March 2004]:The £20 million to £30 million is an estimate provided by the independent McFarland Review and refers to the one-off capital investment considered necessary to sustain Forensic Science Service business at current levels.

  Grants
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what grants that fall outside the revenue support grant were awarded by his Department to local authorities in(a)Lancashire and (b)Chorley in each of the last three financial years. [156513]

  Ms Blears
  The information available is set out in the following table.

  £ million

  Lancashire police authority

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Home Office Principal Formula grant

  96.9

  97.4

  105.2

  Crime Fighting Fund

  1.1

  3.3

  5.4

  Rural Policing Fund

  0.06

  0.06

  0.06

  Airwave

  7.2

  0.5

  0.5

  BCU funding

  —

  —

  1.2

  Community Support Officers

  —

  0.5

  0.3

  Street Crime Initiative

  —

  0.8

  0.4

  Special Priority Payments

  —

  —

  0.6

  DNA Expansion Programme

  —

  1.9

  1.5

  Capital grant

  3.7

  2.5

  2.3

  Premises Improvement Fund

  —

  0.5

  0.5

  Arrest Referral—Lancashire Police

  —

  0.3

  0.5

  Criminal Justice Interventions Programme (CJIP)—Drug Testing

  —

  0.3

  0.2

  Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships1

  8.3

  5.0

  3.2

  Of which:

  Funding for Chorley

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Total

  117.26

  113.06

  121.86

  1Includes Building Safer Communities Fund, Partnership Development Fund, Communities Against Drugs and Safer Communities Initiative, Funding for CCTV, Violence against women (VAW), Neighbourhood Wardens, Street Wardens and Small Retailers in Deprived Areas and the Reducing Burglary Initiative.

  Gender Dysphoria
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department will publish guidelines on the treatment of prisoners with gender dysphoria. [159028]
  1578W
  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service expects to publish these guidelines once the Gender Recognition Bill has become law and it is in a position to include guidance on the implications of this legislation for its policies and practices.

  identity Cards
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consultation is planned with the public regarding identity cards. [156092]

  Beverley Hughes
  Since the six month consultation period on entitlement cards and identity fraud officially ended on 31 January 2003, consultation with the public has been ongoing via the despatch of the Next Steps publication to all those who responded to the consultation exercise, the identity cards website, and the recording of all public correspondence received.

  A covering consultation paper will accompany the draft Bill on identity cards, which was announced in the Queen's speech. The paper will enable further consultation with the public as well as specific stakeholder groups on the detail of the Bill. This will be in addition to any pre legislative scrutiny by Parliament.

  During this period there will also be opportunity to consult on the wider issues around how a scheme may work in practice. A communications strategy will be developed to ensure engagement with the public.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the Identity Cards Programme Board. [157007]

  Beverley Hughes
  As indicated in "Identity Cards: The Next Steps" (Cm 6020), the Identity Cards Programme Board has been established by the Home Office to coordinate and drive forward the different elements of the Government strategy. The board is chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office. Progress at every stage will be monitored and reviewed as further decisions are taken during the implementation. Before decisions are taken on implementation, there will be an intensive phase of feasibility assessment and prototyping so that decision making is soundly based and risks in the programme are kept to a minimum.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the nature of the proposed national identity database; and what plans he has to use 2D barcodes to store the biometric template on identity cards. [157028]

  Beverley Hughes
  Data held on the National Identity Register will be basic identity information—such as name, address, date of birth, gender, immigration status and a confirmed biometric—and this will be set out in statute. Organisations using the National Register to verify identity will not be able to get to other personal information, for instance health or tax records, via the register.

  At present there is no firm decision on the technology which will be used on the card. Technologies will be evaluated in how well they meet our requirements, in particularly in the areas of security, capacity and adherence to international standards.
  1579W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the UK Passport Agency pilot scheme, including his assessment of the(a)popularity and (b)effectiveness of different forms of biometric identifiers. [157029]

  Beverley Hughes
  The UK Passport Service (UKPS) is running a six-month trial beginning in March 2004 to test the recording and verification of facial recognition, iris and fingerprint biometrics. Approximately 10,000 participants will take part in the trial. Results from the trial will help inform the Government's plans to introduce biometrics to support improved identity authentication and help prevent identity fraud.

  The objectives of the UKPS biometrics trial include the following:
  to test the use of biometrics through a simulation of the passport process
  to include exception cases, e.g. people who may have difficulties in enrolment
  to measure the process time and hence estimate costs to assess customer perceptions and reactions
  to assess practical aspects of incorporation of biometrics into a biometric database
  to identify issues and risks and produce an outline implementation plan.

  In relation to the popularity and effectiveness of biometrics in the context of the UKPS's trial, the work is largely based around recommendations from a report in August 2002 by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) entitled: "Feasibility Study on Use of Biometrics in an Entitlement Scheme", and which is available on the Home Office Identity Cards website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/identitycards.

  UKPS already plans to introduce a passport with a facial image held in a chip from mid 2005. The NPL report was commissioned by UKPS and DVLA to examine the feasibility of using additional biometrics as a means of establishing a unique identity, to support better identity authentication alongside work on the proposed entitlement (now identity card) scheme.

  The report discusses the most significant component of the cost of such a scheme as being the time and effort to enrol individuals and collect their biometric data (especially the impact of exception cases on throughput performance), and that this is one of the least well-understood aspects of biometric technologies. The report recommended further studies in this area.

  It is this recommendation which lies behind the objectives of the current trials being conducted by UKPS.

  In addition, and as published in "Identity Cards: A summary of findings from the Consultation Exercise or Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud", UKPS carried out evaluation questionnaires during the demonstrations of iris and fingerprint biometrics in 2002–03. While not fully representative, the sample illustrated a positive attitude towards biometrics. For example, over 85 per cent. wanted to take the opportunity to establish their identity more securely using either fingerprint or iris biometrics, as long as the technology was secure.
  1580W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures he proposes to deter access to a national identity database for improper reasons; [157031]

  (2) how the national identity database will be monitored to detect a potential compromise of its security; [157032]

  (3) if he will outline the risk management system proposed for the security of the identity card scheme; [157036]

  (4) what measures will be in place under the current identity card proposals to ensure that the identity database is not vulnerable to hackers. [157038]

  Beverley Hughes
  The security and integrity of the database are integral to maintaining trust in the Identity Cards scheme. The specifications and design of the database and its security features have not yet been established but will take into account security advice from the earliest stages and the design process will include threat and vulnerability assessments. Threats which will be assessed will include unauthorised internal and external access to data.

  Home Office officials are already working with security experts to ensure that security issues are considered from the start of the database design, and with other government departments which have similar databases with similar security needs, such as the United Kingdom Passport Service.

  The Identity Cards Programme takes risk management extremely seriously and has developed its approach to risk management in line with Home Office best practice. The Programme Board and Ministers are considering the Governance arrangements for the ID Cards scheme and will consider what the risk management system should be in order to ensure the security of the Identity Card scheme.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on whether some categories of individuals have a higher failure rate with certain biometric identifiers; and what measures he plans to overcome this problem. [157034]

  Beverley Hughes
  In his announcement on 11 November 2003, my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary stated that the Government have decided to begin the process of introducing a national identity cards scheme.

  The first stage of the process will include work across Government to develop effective technology particularly on biometrics, and to introduce systems to ensure that biometric data can be collected, stored and used effectively. This includes a biometric pilot which is being run by the United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) to test the recording of face, iris and fingerprint biometric information.

  One of the specific objectives of the UKPS pilot is to test biometric enrolment on a sample of people who may have difficulties with enrolment. Data gained from this pilot will inform the design of the Identity Card scheme's enrolment processes and procedures for enrolling those unable to provide certain biometrics.
  1581W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is possible to combine data from the national identity database with other databases or information systems under the current identity card proposals. [157299]

  Beverley Hughes
  As set out in "Identity Cards: The Next Steps" (Cm 6020), the National Identity Register will be built from scratch as people are issued with identity cards and will not rely solely on other sources of data. Before an entry on the National Identity Register is confirmed, it will be checked against other databases such as passports, driving licences and immigration records.

  Organisations using the National Identity Register to verify identity will not be able to get to other personal information, for instance health or tax records via the Register.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action his Department is taking to prevent functionality creep in relation to identity cards; [158658]

  (2) what study he has undertaken, in relation to his policy on identity cards, of the use by the US Administration of social security numbers; [158672]

  (3) when a complete specification of requirements of the identity cards database will be available; and to what analysis this specification will be subject. [158710]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government are aware of concerns about function creep. Our scheme will include safeguards to ensure that there is no extension of functions without proper justification and authorisation. Neither the statutory purposes of the scheme nor the range of information held on the National Identity Register could be extended without Parliament's authorisation.

  During the development of the identity cards proposals officials looked at policy and practice in many different countries. The problems in relation to the US Social Security Number were highlighted in the Cabinet Office Identity Fraud Study which was published at the start of our consultation period. This was one of the factors which has led to the government's conclusion set out in "Identity Cards: The Next Steps" that the National Identity Register needs to be established from scratch and that checks on an identity need to be more stringent than those currently in place for passports and driving licences.

  The specification of requirements for the database will be drawn up as part of the procurement process. The process will be subject to evaluation to assess how well our requirements are met, particularly in the areas of security, capacity and adherence to international standards. The timing of the procurement process is dependent on the legislative timetable.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the ease with which encryption methods for identity cards can be upgraded. [159758]
  1582W
  Beverley Hughes
  There are ongoing maintenance procedures which are a requirement of any encryption scheme. These include but are not limited to key issuing, certificate issuing, certificate revocation and technology upgrade.

  Home Office officials are taking advice from cryptography experts within government on the design of the encryption scheme. The necessity for measures to permit maintenance and upgrade of the encryption scheme will be taken into account during the design.

  Kent County Council Act
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend to the rest of England the provisions of the Kent County Council Act 2001; and if he will make a statement. [159720]

  Ms Blears
  In line with Clause 20 of the Kent County Council Act, the council will be submitting a report on the working provisions of the Act to the Secretary of State no later than 1 December 2004, which will then be laid before Parliament.

  The Home Office has also commissioned the University of Kent to evaluate the effectiveness of the legislation and we will also lay a summary of the results of this research before Parliament.

  These two reports will allow the government to make an informed decision as to whether we should pursue similar legislation nationally.

  Local Government Finance (Dorset)
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what grants were awarded to local authorities in Dorset by his Department in financial year 2003–04 that fall outside the revenue support grant. [156206]

  Ms Blears
  The information is set out in the table.

  £ million

  Police Authority

  Home Office Principal Formula Police grant

  39.7

  Crime Fighting Fund

  2.3

  Rural Policing Fund

  0.4

  Airwave

  0.2

  BCU funding

  0.5

  Community Support Officers

  0.2

  Special Priority Payments

  0.4

  DMA Expansion Programme

  0.5

  Capital grant

  1.1

  Premises Improvement Fund

  0.5

  Arrest Referral

  0.1

  Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships

  Building Safer Communities Fund

  0.9

  Other1

  0.2

  Total

  47.0

  1Regional Fund and funding to tackle anti-social behaviour,domestic violence and vehicle crime provided to BCUs and CDRPs and Dorset county council.

  Managed Migration Programmes
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on how he makes use of the assistance provided by the(a)UK

  1583W
  National Recognition Information Centre and (b)UK National Reference Point for Vocational Qualifications in the support of Managed Migration programmes. [157365]

  Beverley Hughes
  The criteria for the issue of work permits and for the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme requires Work Permits (UK) to be satisfied that overseas workers possess the skills and qualifications necessary to take up jobs in the UK. To qualify for a work permit the job is expected to require the individual to have either(a) UK equivalent degree level qualification; or,
  (b) a Higher National Diploma (HND) level qualification which is relevant to the post on offer; or,
  (c) an HND level qualification which is not relevant to the post plus one year of relevant full-time work experience at National/Scottish Vocational Qualification (N/SVQ) level 3 or above; or,
  (d) three years full time experience, at N/SVQ level 3 or above, of using specialist skills acquired through doing the type of job for which the permit is sought.

  In considering this element of the work permit application Work Permits (UK) will, in some cases, consult the UK National Recognition Information Centre and the UK National Reference Point for Vocational Qualifications to ensure the qualifications and skills obtained overseas meet the work permit criteria.

  Mr. Paul Watson
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that documents requested by the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell's constituent, Mr. Paul Watson, regarding his criminal record in support of his defence at trial in France are provided swiftly. [156480]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 26 February 2004]:Officials in the Home Office have liaised with the French authorities and they understand that a letter of request will shortly be issued in Mr. Watson's case. The UK Central Authority at the Home Office will arrange for it to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible once they receive it.

  National Offender Management Service
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who the employer for qualified probation officers will be under the National Offender Management Service. [155837]

  Paul Goggins
  In the short term probation officers will continue to be employed by probation boards. Future arrangements have yet to be finalised and will be subject to the usual consultation arrangements with staff and unions.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role chief officers will have under the National Offender Management Service. [155839]

  Paul Goggins
  In the short term the role of chief officers will remain as it is. Any proposed changes will be subject to the usual consultation arrangements.
  1584W
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the public protection function of the Probation Service to be the subject of contestability under the National Offender Management Service structures. [159811]

  Paul Goggins
  The details of contestability within correctional services will be developed as part of the implementation of the Reducing Crime—Changing Lives reforms. Inter-agency work to protect the public and encourage rehabilitation will remain a crucial element of the work of the National Offender Management Service.

  Naturalisation Application
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the application for naturalisation dated 19 November 2003 by Mrs. Tomes of Christchurch, reference T1072596, will be processed. [159408]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]:Mrs. Tomes application has been processed and a decision was reached on 3 March.

  No Fixed Abode
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the monetary grant made available to all prisoners on release from custodial sentence is greater if a prisoner states no fixed abode as their address. [157994]

  Paul Goggins
  A higher rate of discharge grant (£94.40) is paid to prisoners on release only if there is a need to seek, obtain and pay for accommodation. It is only paid to prisoners with no accommodation arranged in advance if this arises through no fault of the prisoner. Otherwise the standard rates of discharge grant paid are £46.75 (for prisoners aged 25 and older) or £37 (for prisoners aged 18 to 24).

  Online Passport Applications
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passport applications have been made online in each year since the service became available. [158044]

  Beverley Hughes
  UK Passport Services (UKPS) online passport application is an electronic service that allows applicants to enter their details on to an electronic passport application form. The form is then pre-populated and sent to the applicant by post for inclusion of their signature, payment and supporting documentation.

  UKPS's online service has been available since 13 November 2000. The table shows the number of application forms completed online each year since the service became available.

  Number of forms completed

  2000 (13 November until 31 December)

  1,670

  2001

  46,514

  2002

  93,156

  2003

  149,003

  2004 (1 January until 29 February)

  62,046

  Police
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days were lost through sickness in(a)the Lancashire constabulary and (b)police forces of a similar size and displaying similar characteristics in England since 2000; and if he will make a statement. [157798]

  Ms Blears
  The total number of days lost to sick leave, and average days per officer and support staff member, in Lancashire Constabulary, and the most similar forces, in each of the years since 2000 are identified:

  Force

  Days lost to sick leave

  Days per officer

  Days per staff

  1999–2000

  Avon and Somerset

  54,244

  11.5

  11.8

  Durham

  22,463

  10.6

  9.0

  Gwent

  23,509

  13.2

  11.2

  Hertfordshire

  29,291

  10.4

  11.1

  Humberside

  27,563

  9.1

  9.8

  Kent

  54,023

  10.7

  11.2

  Lancashire

  57,854

  12.4

  117

  South Wales

  70,766

  15.5

  18.8

  England and Wales

  2,172,859

  11.6

  12.4

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  60,333

  13.4

  12.3

  Durham

  26,983

  13.0

  10.6

  Gwent

  27,218

  15.4

  13.1

  Hertfordshire

  35,956

  11.8

  13.7

  Humberside

  26,334

  8.6

  11.5

  Kent

  59,134

  11.6

  11.5

  Lancashire

  60,924

  12.5

  12.8

  South Wales

  69,983

  16.1

  14.6

  England and Wales

  2,263,075

  12.2

  12.6

  2001–02

  Avon and Somerset

  61,620

  13.0

  12.5

  Durham

  25,296

  11.1

  11.9

  Gwent

  28,870

  15.6

  12.0

  Hertfordshire

  35,339

  11.9

  10.9

  Humberside

  27,493

  8.6

  10.2

  Kent

  61,170

  11.1

  11.8

  Lancashire

  59,417

  11.6

  11.7

  South Wales

  60,785

  12.7

  14.0

  England and Wales

  2,228,478

  11.5

  12.0

  2002–03

  Avon and Somerset

  60,468

  11.4

  12.8

  Durham

  25,148

  10.1

  12.6

  Gwent

  26,508

  10.5

  13.2

  Hertfordshire

  36,860

  10.6

  12.4

  Humberside

  25,094

  7.8

  8.1

  Kent

  65,089

  10.7

  12.7

  Lancashire

  61.296

  10.9

  14.1

  South Wales

  54,537

  10.1

  13.9

  England and Wales

  2,158,146

  10.4

  11.7

  The National Policing plan for 2002, I set a target of 11.5 days for police officers and 12.0 for police staff by

  Total police vehicle accidents

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Avon and Somerset

  507

  477

  531

  457

  394

  616

  647

  Bedfordshire

  205

  320

  161

  215

  170

  167

  196

  Cambridgeshire

  256

  303

  238

  200

  225

  183

  217

  Cheshire

  194

  111

  142

  112

  124

  175

  167

  City of London

  80

  62

  64

  56

  90

  30

  38

  Cleveland

  75

  86

  44

  62

  92

  1—

  142

  Cumbria

  116

  133

  87

  144

  152

  182

  186

  Derbyshire

  320

  383

  399

  355

  379

  399

  447

  Devon and Cornwall

  250

  308

  337

  347

  352

  369

  449

  1586W
  the end of 2005–06. Achieving further reductions in sickness absence is one of the principle objectives of the Strategy for a Healthy Police Service.

  The Strategy for a Healthy Police has continued to focus forces on the reduction of sickness absence, and provide forces with funding to improve their occupational health, safety and welfare provision further.

  Sickness absence figures have improved since the launch of the Strategy, with overall sickness absence now at a national average of 10.4 days per officer per year, and 11.7 per support staff member. The best performing forces have continued to make improvements, but the gap between best and worst performers has also significantly narrowed.

  Lancashire has continued to make progress in reducing its sickness absence levels.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 23 February 2004,Official Report,column 243W, on police, what the reasons were for the rise in numbers of accidents in which police vehicles were involved in Gloucestershire; and what the approximate cost of this increase was. [159392]

  Caroline Flint
  Unfortunately, the table showing the number of accidents involving police vehicles given in the answer contained some errors. I apologise for this. The correct table is now shown as follows.

  We do not keep records centrally on the reasons for every police vehicle accident across the country. The Home Office has, however, consulted the Chief Constable of the Gloucestershire Constabulary, who informs us that all police vehicle accidents in his Force area are carefully monitored. Procedures and policies are kept under review in line with national Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines. Officers driving police vehicles undergo extensive training and the safety of officers and the public is taken extremely seriously.

  It is not possible to say exactly why this increase has occurred. The number of police vehicle accidents fluctuates over time, across the country. Gloucestershire Constabulary has increased its number of operational officers and vehicles over recent years. This has increased vehicle mileage to 4,138,830 miles in the last 12 months. Information is not available centrally on the costs of police vehicle accidents. However. a significant number of accidents recorded involve only minor damage with no risk of injury to any party. None of the accidents resulted in fatalities, to either police officers or members of the public.
  1587W

  Total police vehicle accidents

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Dorset

  119

  139

  129

  143

  166

  188

  184

  Durham

  159

  142

  184

  157

  182

  178

  1—

  Dyfed-Powys

  75

  42

  40

  88

  162

  198

  204

  Essex

  391

  396

  406

  392

  446

  392

  414

  Gloucestershire

  196

  147

  163

  228

  181

  124

  203

  Greater Manchester

  957

  774

  933

  981

  1,108

  1,050

  1,038

  Gwent

  195

  182

  217

  194

  179

  199

  160

  Hampshire

  555

  594

  560

  665

  622

  617

  543

  Hertfordshire

  223

  196

  197

  221

  307

  310

  344

  Humberside

  188

  207

  236

  162

  198

  194

  150

  Kent

  423

  546

  448

  427

  507

  506

  732

  Lancashire

  449

  268

  160

  417

  331

  244

  510

  Leicestershire

  214

  173

  186

  168

  161

  145

  180

  Lincolnshire

  71

  94

  185

  149

  141

  114

  131

  Merseyside

  320

  414

  262

  335

  260

  325

  240

  Metropolitan Police

  3,783

  4,045

  4,645

  4,643

  5,375

  3,657

  4,910

  Norfolk

  192

  211

  184

  221

  224

  202

  231

  Northamptonshire

  134

  139

  91

  68

  147

  86

  121

  Northumbria

  1—

  489

  472

  510

  445

  432

  513

  North Wales

  95

  48

  46

  46

  77

  92

  60

  North Yorkshire

  131

  140

  140

  102

  167

  117

  397

  Nottinghamshire

  298

  278

  225

  211

  213

  240

  316

  South Wales

  597

  563

  651

  663

  873

  833

  917

  South Yorkshire

  292

  357

  400

  367

  279

  216

  316

  Staffordshire

  557

  644

  646

  527

  462

  298

  306

  Suffolk

  136

  122

  168

  143

  137

  142

  119

  Surrey

  270

  108

  108

  42

  148

  103

  320

  Sussex

  401

  282

  223

  567

  462

  1—

  470

  Thames Valley

  888

  688

  918

  1,045

  1,063

  1,127

  992

  Warwickshire

  137

  135

  123

  136

  132

  135

  119

  West Mercia

  175

  270

  260

  201

  234

  202

  293

  West Midlands

  1,503

  1,367

  1,210

  1,220

  1,286

  1,360

  1—

  West Yorkshire

  728

  500

  453

  629

  553

  619

  672

  Wiltshire

  53

  63

  66

  52

  60

  60

  50

  Notes:

  1Data not yet submitted by force.

  1. The information is provided by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, to whom forces submit statistical returns.

  2. All figures are for financial years.

  3. The figures for police vehicle accidents include all incidents in which a police vehicle sustains damage, including those where no other vehicle is involved. They encompass a very wide range of incidents from the very serious to the trivial, such as a scratched vehicle in apolice yard.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a)officers and (b)civilians served in the Staffordshire police force in each year since 1996. [160060]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is set out in the table

  Staffordshire Police-strength 31 March 1996 to 31 December 2003

  Police officers

  Police staff

  31 March 1996

  2.209

  754

  31 March 1997

  2,211

  763

  31 March 1998

  2.292

  866

  31 March 1999

  2,238

  1,004

  31 March 2000

  2,170

  858

  31 March 2001

  2,129

  935

  31 March 2002

  2,133

  1,030

  31 March 2003

  2,202

  1,146

  31 December 2003

  2,253

  Not available

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions his Department has made available additional funding for police authorities to cover the cost of large scale and expensive investigations in each of the last five years. [157371]

  Ms Blears
  Between 1999–2000 and 2003–04, 45 special grants were paid to 22 police authorities for large scale, exceptionally high cost police operations. Cases were considered in the light of individual circumstances, subject to funds being available in each year.

  The majority of payments have been for major public order and security operations. Four special grants have been for major criminal investigations. The table sets out special grant payments made in each year since 1999–2000.
  1588W 1589W

  £ million

  Force area

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04 to date

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  1.0

  —

  24.65

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  1.9

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  0.52

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset1

  1.6

  0.9

  —

  0.89

  1.87

  Essex6

  2.0

  0.135

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire5

  —

  —

  —

  0.25

  4.696

  Greater Manchester3

  —

  —

  3.14

  3.3

  —

  Kent

  0.67

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire1

  0.89

  —

  1.89

  1.5

  1.08

  Lincolnshire7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.5

  London, City of

  —

  —

  1.2

  —

  —

  Metropolitan police

  —

  1.0

  1.0

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  1.0

  —

  0.1

  South Yorkshire

  1.0

  1.0

  —

  1.0

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  0.3

  0.3

  0.15

  Staffordshire

  0.36

  —

  —

  —

  0.25

  Surrey

  —

  0.1

  —

  ?70.28

  —

  Sussex1

  —

  1.66

  1.75

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  0.15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  0.116

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire4

  —

  —

  2.22

  —

  1.0

  Wiltshire7

  —

  0.87

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  7.306

  8.565

  125

  12.17

  9.646

  1Dorset. Lancashire and Sussex regularly receive special grants for the cost of policing the annual Labour and Conservative party conferences.

  2Includes £3.5 million for the Soham murder investigation.

  3Policing of the Commonwealth Games and Oldham riot.

  4Bradford riot policing costs.

  5Grant to date for policing of RAF Fairford during Iraq war.

  6Stansted Airport hijack.

  7Surrey was assisted with the cost of the Amanda Dowler, Deepcut Barracks and SE rapist investigations, Wiltshire with the cost of the Porton Down investigation. Lincolnshire is being assisted with a major fraud investigation.

  Dorset. Lancashire and Sussex regularly receive special grants for the cost of policing the annual Labour and Conservative party conferences.

  2 Includes £3.5 million for the Soham murder investigation.

  3 Policing of the Commonwealth Games and Oldham riot.

  4 Bradford riot policing costs.

  5 Grant to date for policing of RAF Fairford during Iraq war.

  6 Stansted Airport hijack.

  7 Surrey was assisted with the cost of the Amanda Dowler, Deepcut Barracks and SE rapist investigations, Wiltshire with the cost of the Porton Down investigation. Lincolnshire is being assisted with a major fraud investigation.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much compensation was paid by police authorities in England and Wales to claimants in respect of assaults by serving police officers in each year from 1990 to 2003. [159721]

  Ms Blears
  Information concerning how much compensation was paid by police authorities in England and Wales to claimants in respect of assaults by serving police officers in each year from 1990 to 2003 is not held centrally either by the Home Office or, I understand, by the Association of Police Authorities. It could therefore be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many successful claimants against police authorities in England and Wales in respect of assault by serving police officers were themselves originally charged with assault or a public order offence in each year from 1990 to 2003; [159723]

  (2) how many successful claims against police authorities in England and Wales in respect of assault by serving officers were concluded in each year from 1990 to 2003. [159724]

  Ms Blears
  Information concerning how many successful claims against police authorities in England and Wales, in respect of assault by serving officers, were concluded in each year from 1990 to 2003 is not held centrally by the Home Office or I understand by the Association of Police Authorities. It could therefore be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  1590W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in full-time police officers in Crosby has been since 1997. [160537]

  Ms Blears
  Crosby is part of the Sefton Basic Command Unit (BCU). Information on strength at BCU level is collected annually and reflects the position at the end of March for each year. Information on BCU strength is only available from 2002.

  Between March 2002 and March 2003 police strength for the Sefton BCU increased by 0.5 per cent. (from 431 to 433). The deployment of officers to BCUs is a matter for the Chief Constable (Norman Bettison QPM) and within the Sefton BCU deployment of officers is a matter for Divisional Commander.

  Prison Education
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2004,Official Report,column 722W, on prison education, what security limits internet access for prisoners; and what circumstances permit 31 prisoners to have regular access to the internet. [160225]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 9 March 2004]:The Prison Service has a duty to protect the public. Integral to this is the restriction of prisoner communications. This is necessary in order to prevent escapes, disorder in prisons, the intimidation of witnesses, or making unwanted or inappropriate contact with victims of crime and/or children, and the conducting of criminal activity from within jails. To allow prisoners generally to have access to the internet would undermine security.
  1591W
  The prisoners who have regular access to the internet have been granted this for the particular requirements of the work at which they are employed. Their allocation to this work is subject to an individual risk assessment. They sign agreements about their use of the internet. They are monitored closely by an information technology (IT) manager and the websites they visit are controlled and subject to audit.

  Although no prisoners have access to the internet for education there are schemes provided by the Department for Education and Skills in prisons that seek to give prisoners training in internet IT skills, without open connection to the internet itself.

  Prison Suicides
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners committed suicide in England and Wales before(a)having their mental health assessed and (b)receiving treatment for mental health problems, for each of the last five years. [155402]

  Paul Goggins
  The data requested are not collated centrally and could only be provided by examination of individual case records, which would be at disproportionate cost.

  Upon reception into prison, all newly received prisoners, plus those who change status, (for example by being convicted), and those transferred from another establishment, are assessed to determine whether they have any immediate physical and mental health needs.

  The Department of Health and the Prison Service are working together to implement a revised reception health screening process during 2004. These new arrangements focus particularly on ensuring prompt and effective identification of those individuals with mental health problems, or who may be at risk of suicide/self-harm, so that they can be appropriately treated and cared for.

  Prisoners
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what offences female Jamaican nationals were serving prison sentences in the UK in each of the last five years. [153257]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of sentenced female Jamaican nationals in prison in England and Wales, by offence group, is given in the following table. Figures are for the 30 June each year from 1997 to 2003.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for Ministers in the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Sentenced female Jamaican prisoners by offence, at 30 June, 1999 to 2003

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Violence against the person

  1

  0

  2

  3

  3

  Burglary

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Robbery

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Theft and handling

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Fraud and forgery

  2

  1

  1

  5

  4

  Drugs offences

  129

  152

  249

  425

  374

  Other offences

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Offence not recorded

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Research Licences
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what licences have been issued since 1997 for carrying out research involving the observation of captured wild rats in a model sewer system. [158099]

  Caroline Flint
  The information requested is not maintained in that form in a central database. A check of work currently licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 has not identified any projects involving observational studies of this type. However, licence authorities under the 1986 Act would not be required for such work if it was unlikely to cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, broken down by force and in total, the average number of hours worked per head by special constables in each of the last three years. [159996]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 March 2004]:There are no statistics published on the average number of hours worked per head by Special Constables.

  Travel Documents
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are proposed to ensure that people arriving in the UK are aware of the offence of deliberately losing or destroying travel documents. [159527]

  Beverley Hughes
  We will advise those coming to the United Kingdom of the potential consequences of destroying or disposing of their documentation through our embassies and High Commissions abroad and the foreign media. This will be reinforced by displaying warning notices immediately on arrival at UK ports of entry.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits were issued in each year since 1997; and what(a)forecasts he has made and (b)evidence of need he has collected for each year to 2010. [156087]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 February 2004]:The total number of work permits issued, including extensions, in the period from 1997 to the third quarter 2003 (the latest date for which information is available) is as follows:

  Number

  1997

  44,958

  1998

  53,962

  1999

  60,743

  2000

  88,651

  2001

  120,823

  2002

  136,151

  2003

  108,221

  The work permit system is designed to be flexible and responsive to the needs of employers and the economy. There are no forecasted targets for the number of work permits issued, although Work Permits (UK) does make

  1593W
  internal planning assumptions about expected volumes of applications, in order to allocate resources to process applications. Work Permits (UK) Business Plan for 2003–2004 makes a planning assumption of 230, 500 applications received. This total includes Sector Based Scheme, Highly Skilled Migrant Programme and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme applications and extensions.

  These planning assumptions are informed by monitoring trends in volumes of applications and consultation with stakeholders, including other government departments on labour market conditions.

  However, there is no long-term forecast of expected volumes of applications.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his assessment of the benefit to the UK of work permits. [157295]

  Beverley Hughes
  The work permit arrangements are a key part of the Government's managed migration strategy, under which the United Kingdom seeks to offer legal routes for the admission of those foreign nationals who possess skills and qualifications that are in short supply here and who will contribute to the economy.

  The work permit arrangements offer an efficient and responsive means of ensuring that UK employers are able to recruit overseas workers with the skills that they need, while protecting the interests of resident workers.

  Yarl's Wood Detention Centre
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when an annual report was prepared by the independent monitoring board for Yarl's Wood. [157447]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Independent Monitoring Board for Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre produced a first report in spring 2002 covering the period from their first meeting in November 2001 to the temporary closure of the centre on 31 March 2002.

  The Board will produce an annual report covering the period from the re-opening of Yarl's Wood at the end of September 2003 to December 2004 by 31 January 2005 in accordance with the Detention Centre Rules.

HEALTH

  "Agenda for Change"
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2004,Official Report,column 537W, on "Agenda for Change", to what extent there will be flexibility for individual employers to pay recruitment and retention premiums. [159738]

  Mr. Hutton
  Under the proposed new national health service pay system, "Agenda for Change", NHS employers will be able to pay recruitment and retention premiums to individual postholders or groups of postholders where market pressures would otherwise prevent employers from being able to recruit and retain staff in sufficient numbers. Before paying recruitment and retention premia, NHS employers will need to 1594W
  satisfy themselves that agreed criteria have been met and will need to have consulted with staff representatives, neighbouring employers, strategic health authorities and other stakeholders.

  A and E Departments
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in the accident and emergency departments of NHS hospitals in each year from 1990 to 2002. [156014]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of patients attending accident and emergency departments in national health service hospitals in England 1989–90 to 2002–03 is shown in the table.

  Attendances at A&E departments, England, 1989–90 to 2002–03

  New attendances

  Follow-up attendances

  Total attendances

  1989–90

  11,207,099

  2,728,203

  13,935,302

  1990–91

  11,204,059

  2,512,913

  13,716,972

  1991–92

  11,035,326

  2,270,155

  13,305,481

  1992–93

  10,993,202

  2,077,009

  13,070,211

  1993–94

  11,364,703

  1,923,987

  13,288,690

  1994–95

  11,942,599

  1,869,123

  13,811,722

  1995–96

  12,461,909

  1,772,381

  14,234,290

  1996–97

  12,483,633

  1,642,544

  14,126,177

  1997–98

  12,793,720

  1,570,426

  14,364,146

  1998–99

  12,811,064

  1,469,324

  14,280,388

  1999–2000

  13,167,495

  1,461,530

  14,629,025

  2000–01

  12,953,432

  1,339,875

  14,293,307

  2001–02

  12,852,702

  1,191,316

  14,044,018

  2002–03

  12,945,413

  1,100,162

  14,045,575

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO9

  Angiography
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department started collecting the figures for angiography waiting times; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for collecting this data centrally. [158965]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Improving angiography access times forms an important part of the national service framework for coronary heart disease. Strategic health authorities outlined their plans to improve access in the local delivery plans (LDPs). Monitoring against the LDPs started in 2003–04. It is expected data will be of sufficient quality to publish shortly.

  Hospital episode statistics which have been used previously outline the length of time someone had waited when treated, not the time someone is waiting.

  Asthma
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients(a)over and (b)under 45 years were admitted to hospital for asthma in (i) Greater London and (ii) each London borough in the last five years. [158443]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available in the format requested. In formation on patients admitted to London hospitals with a primary diagnosis of asthma by
  1595W
  primary care trust of residence for the year 2002 to 2003, has been placed in the Library. Information for previous years by PCT of residence is not available.

  Bereavement Services
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to encourage a co-ordinated approach to bereavement services within his Department. [159966]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A three year training and development strategy was started in 2003 to enable clinical and other staff to manage bereavement well. This required additional funding of £2.7 million per year paid directly to trusts. An additional £300,000 is spent each year by the Department over the three year period for the central preparation of professional standards, training tools and materials to be used by trusts. Joint protocols have been developed between the national health service and coroners to train staff in procedures for obtaining consent for post mortem examinations and for provision of support at the time of death.

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS hospitals have staff specially allocated to provide the newly bereaved with sound information on existing laws and procedures so that they can be supported in making quick decisions about funerals. [159967]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The provision of bereavement counselling services within the national health service trusts is a requirement set by the Chief Medical Officer as part of his recommendations following the Alder Hay Inquiry. Families have the right to be provided with sensitive support and advice from NHS trusts at the time of bereavement, responsive to different religious and cultural beliefs. In order to meet this requirement, a three year training and development programme for all trusts was started in 2003. A survey of all trusts will be undertaken in April 2004 to establish the level of support currently in place.

  Capital Projects
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications for the proposed Droitwich Spa one-stop shop of his decision to change the funding arrangements for the project. [157961]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Significant new revenue funding is being made available to support public, private capital investment in the primary care estate based on local prioritisation of development proposals.

  The funding arrangements have changed as a result of the new general medical services (GMS) contract which has been negotiated between the NHS Confederation and the General Practitioners Committee.

  Previously revenue premises costs were funded via both the non cash limited and cash limited GMS routes. From April 2004 this funding will become resource limited and primary care trusts will manage this in conjunction with those resources in their unified allocation.
  1596W
  The future of the Droitwich Spa development will depend on the priority for investment in this facility relative to other such developments within the west Midland south area.

  This will be decided by a planning group compromising all of the primary care trust chief executives within the west Midlands south area.

  Cardiac Care
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people from each primary care trust area in England received cardiac treatment at hospitals in Greater London in the last six years for which information is available. [158410]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested for the year 2002 to 2003, has been placed in the Library. Information for previous years is not available.

  Chorley Hospital
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list new health services available at Chorley Hospital since 2000; and how much money has been spent on Chorley Hospital since 2000. [157676]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Chorley and South Ribble Hospital was commissioned as a new district general hospital in 1995–96. Since 2000, there has been approximately £10 million of investment in the following areas:

  New medical ward

  12 station dialysis unit

  new dermatology/diabetes centre

  bedside televisions/telephone system

  multi-faith prayer room

  two new theatres

  new clinic for breast services

  orthopaedic/fracture clinics

  new discharge lounge

  new nursery for staff child care

  new sterile services unit.

  Service developments include:

  renal dialysis

  extended elective orthopaedic service, serving Chorley and Preston

  dermatology service for Chorley and Preston

  further facilities for admission of medical patients

  plastic surgery outpatients

  vascular surgery outpatients

  additional orthopaedic clinics

  Source:

  Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority.

  Coldeast Hospital, Fareham
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future use of the Coldeast Hospital Site in Fareham. [160053]
  1597W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 March 2004]:The ownership of the Coldeast Hospital site is split between the Secretary of State for Health, Fareham and Gosport Primary Care Trust (PCT) and West Hampshire National Health Service Trust.

  Reserved matters planning consent has recently been granted for a total of 253 housing units on those parts of the site owned by the Secretary of State for Health and the Fareham and Gosport PCT.

  Options for the sale of the Secretary of State's land are currently being considered. Fareham and Gosport PCT is firming up its plans for the health service needs of both Fareham and Gosport residents and the health campus on the Coldeast site is a key part of those plans.

  Communications Masts
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Department has taken to investigate the potential health risks of Tetra masts in residential areas. [159376]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Stewart Report, in 2000, provided a thorough and comprehensive consideration of the public health concerns associated with mobile phone systems and is available on the web site at www.iegmp.org.uk. The report dealt principally with signals from the widely used mobile phone (GSM) technologies but it did note some contradictory results when examining the biological effects of pulsed radio signals similar to those associated with TETRA (Terrestrial Trunked Radio). While no obvious health effect was suggested, it did recommend a precautionary approach.

  The main conclusion about base stations from the Stewart Report was that:
  "the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines".
  A substantial number of measurements of potential exposures of the public from base station emissions, have now been made by a number of bodies, including the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB)— www.nrpb.org and the Radiocommunications Agency (now part of OFCOM—www.ofcom.org.uk). These measurements include emissions from TETRA base stations. In all cases exposures have been very much lower than the guidelines published by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

  The latest report from NRPB's Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation (AGNIR), entitled "Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" was published on 14 January 2004 addressed the base station issue and concluded that: "Exposure levels from living near to mobile phone base stations are extremely low, and the overall evidence indicates that they are unlikely to pose a risk to health."

  Following a request by the Home Office to the NRPB, the issue of possible health effects caused by signals from TETRA base stations was comprehensively addressed by AGNIR. It published its report, "Possible Health Effects from Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA)", in 2001. This is available as
  1598W
  Documents of NRPB, Volume 12. No 2, 2001, or on the NRPB web site at www.nrpb.org. AGNIR noted that whereas the signals from the TETRA handsets are pulsed, those from TETRA base stations are not pulsed. AGNIR concluded, therefore, that there is no reason to believe that signals from TETRA base stations should be treated differently from other base stations. The AGNIR report also found that exposures of the public to signals from TETRA base stations are small fractions of international guidelines.

  TETRA technologies are included within the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) programme set by the Government 2001—www. mthr.org.uk. An associated programme, specifically on TETRA, is being funded by the Home Office—http://www.homeoffice.gov uk. A number of projects are already under way, but it will be some time before the results are available.

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of(a)patients' need for monitored dosage systems and (b)the wide variation in payment mechanisms to community pharmacists for these, including charges to individual patients. [158999]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  No such assessment has been made nationally. However, primary care trusts may make local arrangements to assess need, arrange provision of services and establish a local payment mechanism.

  As part of new national community pharmacy contractual framework discussions, we are examining arrangements for the provision of compliance aids of which monitored dosage systems is but one.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether all the EU accession countries are compliant with the minimum training requirements in(a)medicine, (b)nursing and (c)dentistry as laid down in the relevant EC Directives. [159203]

  Mr. Hutton
  All acceding states are committed to ensuring that the qualifications they award to doctors and nurses responsible for general care and dentists who begin their training on or after the date of accession meet specified minimum requirements. It is for the European Commission, which is closely monitoring their progress, to see that these obligations are met. It intends to update Member States shortly.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the hon. Member for Walsall North's letter of 3 February regarding a constituent, departmental ref.PO1043437. [159635]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer on 8 March 2004]:A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 2 March 2004.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the scale of charges to patients using NHS dentists is. [155306]
  1599W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  National health service dental charges are subject to the National Health Service (Dental Charges) Regulations 1989. as amended. Under the current arrangements, those patients liable to pay a charge are required to make a contribution to the cost of their treatment equal to 80 per cent. of the dentist's item of services fees. These fees and their related patient charges are set out in the Statement of Dental Remuneration available at http://www.dh.gov.uk/ assetRoot/04/01/93/20/04019320.pdf. This can also be found in the Statement of Dental Remuneration, Amendment No. 91 a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Currently about 24 per cent. of NHS adult patients are exempt from charges or qualify for a reduced charge. Children and certain other groups are exempt from charges.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when information relating to dentists in Adur, Arun and Worthing was last updated by NHS Direct on the NHS website. [156048]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department does not collect information regarding updates on dentists made by NHS Direct. However, I am advised by NHS Direct that primary care trusts have a system in place for updating information about dentists on the NHS website at www.nhs.uk. I understand this was last updated in February 2004 for Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which dental surgeries are taking on non-exempt adults in(a)West Sussex and (b)Adur, Arun and Worthing Primary Care Trust. [156050]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on which dental surgeries are taking adults who pay patient charges can be found on the NHS.UK website at www.nhs.uk. The information on the website is provided by primary care trusts (PCTs), and covers all national health service dental providers, not just principals and assistants in the general dental service.

  The information on the site as at 2 March 2004 shows a total of 53 dental practices in Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT area, one of which is registering charge paying adults for treatment (four are registering charge exempt adults). For the Western Sussex PCT, 48 dental practices are listed, two of which are registering charge paying adults. The information does change regularly often daily, and both the website and NHS Direct (which also uses the information) advise members of the public to telephone the dental practice to double check that the information is still accurate.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time is for digital hearing aids in(a)England and (b)Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement on measures he intends to take to reduce waiting times. [159044]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on waiting times for non- consultant led specialities such as audiology is not collected centrally and so we are unable to estimate an average waiting time for digital hearing aids in England At the end of December 2003, waiting times from 1600W
  referral to fitting at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital were 54 weeks for patients referred by the ear, nose and throat department, 56 weeks for those referred by general practitioners and 112 weeks for patients who self referred for reassessments. These times all include an eight-week period from assessment through to the fitting of the hearing aid.

  The Royal National Institute for the Deaf modernisation team is carrying out a number of initiatives to reduce waiting times and new courses have been introduced to increase the number of audiologists available nationally.

  Drug-related Deaths
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the target to reduce the number of drug-related deaths in England since 1999. [159775]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 3 March 2004,Official Report,column 1021 W.

  Drugs Trials
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to require pharmaceutical companies to publish all results from drugs trials they conduct. [158528]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are no plans currently in place to require disclosure of company drug trial results. The Government welcome the pharmaceutical industry's support for the Department of Health's research governance framework for health and social care, which recognises that it is researchers' responsibility to ensure that research findings are opened to critical review through the accepted scientific and professional channels and disseminated promptly once established. The Government encourages the pharmaceutical industry to disclose drug trial results to the maximum extent consistent with regulatory process and intellectual property rights.

  Environmental Protection
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the mechanisms his Department uses to ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account at each stage of the policy formation process. [155430]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]:The Department has recently reviewed its policy-making processes and is considering how best policy-makers can ensure that all relevant considerations are taken into account when formulating policy.

  EU Accession Countries (Migrants)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a)doctors, (b)dentists and (c)nurses from the EU accession countries he expects to come to work in the UK after 1 May. [159202]
  1601W
  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has made no such estimate. Decisions on whether to offer employment to doctors, dentists and nurses from the accession countries are matters for local national health service employers.

  Food Labelling
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the European Commission's proposal for a regulation on nutrition and health claims made on foods; and if he will make a statement. [158461]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In order to inform the United Kingdom negotiating position on this proposal, a full public consultation has been undertaken and an open meeting with stakeholders held. In addition, the Food Standards Agency, the lead Department for the proposal, has had detailed discussions with other Government Departments.

  The Government welcomes the European Commission's proposal for harmonising rules on the regulation of nutrition and health claims and will seek, through the negotiation process, to provide adequate protection for consumers whilst minimising effects on the food industry.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the reasons are for establishing a risk fund for foundation trust applicants implementing the new financial flows reforms. [154098]

  Mr. Hutton
  The funding will be made available to address the costs of highly complex and specialised cases for first wave national health service foundation trusts applicants for 2004–05 as the methodology to address these costs within the national tariff will not be complete until 2005–06.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from which budget the funding for the risk fund for foundation trust applicants implementing the new financial flows reforms was transferred; and if he will make a statement. [154142]

  Mr. Hutton
  The funding will be made available from the Department's unallocated provision for 2004–05.

  Free Health Care (Students)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend free(a) prescriptions and (b) dental care to students undertaking an apprenticeship. [159461]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Free national health service prescriptions are available to everyone under 16. Free NHS dental treatment is available to everyone under 18. Free NHS prescriptions and free NHS dental treatment are available to everyone up to their nineteenth birthday if they are in full-time education. People who have children, or who are disabled and have low earnings may receive tax credits and a tax credit exemption certificate entitling them to free NHS prescriptions and free NHS dental treatment automatically. Otherwise, anyone can apply for help with their health costs 1602W
  through the NHS low income scheme. The extent of any help is based on a comparison between the claimant's weekly income and requirements at the date the claim is received. We have no plans to change the current arrangements.

  Patients who need frequent prescriptions may benefit from purchasing a prescription prepayment certificate.

  GPs
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) principals and (b) non-principals were in general practice in each year since 1990 in terms of (i) whole time equivalents and (ii) total employed. [158759]

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

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners were appointed in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough in the last 12 months; how many vacancies there were in that period; and how many general practitioners are in practice in (i) Greater London and (ii) each London borough. [158439]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 March 2004]: Information on general practitioner vacancies and appointments is not collected at London borough level. Information for the five London strategic health authorities has been placed in the Library.

  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up an inquiry into Great Ormond Street Hospital's(a) treatment of junior doctors' pay obligations while on rotation and (b) handling of junior doctors' working hours. [R] [158545]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is for local national health service trusts to implement national policy by ensuring they have appropriate arrangements in place for dealing with grievances/complaints, in line with national guidance, as part of good employment practice.

  Under those arrangements, there is regular monitoring to ensure that rotas are satisfactory and that safe services are provided.

  Great Ormond Street, working with staff representative organisations, has these arrangements in place and policies and procedures under which any concerns can be raised and addressed.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctors' rotas at Great Ormond Street Hospital are non-compliant with(a) the New Deal and (b) the EU Working Time Directive; and if he will make a statement. [R] [158547]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect this information. However, I am informed by North Central London Strategic Health Authority that:

  Great Ormond Street Trust has 44 separate rotas. 40 are currently New Deal compliant. Great Ormond Street Trust is scoring 87 per cent, overall compliance with the New Deal—above the national average—and continues to make good

  1603W
  progress. 24 rotas are European Union Working Time Directive compliant and plans are in place to convert the others by September 2004, which is the deadline for compliance.

  Health Resource Groups
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the robustness of the health resource group for specialist services, in advance of the implementation of these groups as a basis for the financial flows reforms. [158502]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is carrying out a review of specialised services so as to ensure that providers of these services are fairly reimbursed under the financial flows reforms. We recognise that, for some of these services, case mix adjustment based on current health care resource group classifications (HR Gs) may not, by itself, provide sufficient reimbursement to specialised providers. Work is under way to refine HRGs to overcome this problem. We are also looking at other options such as adjustments to tariff for patients who have an exceptionally long stay in hospital. We shall be consulting widely with providers and commissioners of these services to make sure that we find the best way forward for each service.

  Hip Replacements
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting time for hip replacements is at the Royal London Hospital. [159132]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health does not collect this information by specific procedure.

  Data on patients waiting for trauma and orthopaedic elective admission at Barts and the London National Health Service Trust, of which the Royal London Hospital is a part, as at 31 December 2003 (the latest data available), is shown in the table.

  Patients waiting for trauma and orthopaedic elective admission at Barts and the London NHS Trust: position at 31 December 2003

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  Less than 3 months

  582

  3 to 5 months

  402

  6 to 8 months

  237

  9 to 11 months

  76

  Total

  1,297

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the NHS in respect of(a) medical negligence cases and (b) other legal claims was in each year since 1992; and what estimate he has made of the potential costs arising from outstanding cases. [159817]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer on 8 March 2004]: Payments made for medical negligence and other legal claims in each year since 1996 are shown in the table. Information for the period 1992 to 1995 cannot be separately identified.
  1604W

  £ million

  Medical negligence in year payments

  Other legal claims in year payments/ receipts

  1996–97

  235

  22

  1997–98

  144

  23

  1998–99

  221

  38

  1999–2000

  373

  19

  2000–2001

  415

  10

  2001–02

  446

  4

  Note:

  Changes to accounting policies imposed by the HM Treasury over the years mean that these amounts are not directly comparable. Estimates of potential costs of outstanding cases:

  (i) The estimated cost of settling all actual clinical negligence claims and incidents that have occurred but may not necessarily result in claims is £5.25 billion as at 31 March 2002.

  (ii) The estimated cost of settling all other legal claims is £113 million as at 31 March 2002.

  Sources:

  Medical negligence

  NHS (England) Summarised Accounts 1996–97 to 2001–02 (the latest year published, the report for 2002–2003 is yet to be published)

  Other legal claims

  Health authority audited accounts 1996–97 to 1998–99

  Health authority audited summarisation forms 1999–2000 to 2001–02

  Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01 to 2001–02

  NHS trust audited summarisation schedules 1996–97 to 2001–02

  Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to use public funds to finance the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. [158524]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) uses public funds to finance the net costs of its work on medical devices. The MHRA's work on medicines is funded by fees from users, principally pharmaceutical companies, as has been the case for more than ten years.

  Men's Health
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to develop the evidence base required for health practitioners to improve the health of men most at risk of(a) heart disease (b) cancer and (c) obesity following the cancellation of the Health Development Agency's men's health work programme. [159328]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The evidence base or coronary heart disease (CHD), cancer and obesity has been and continues to be extensively developed by the Health Development Agency (HDA) for both men and women. In particular, in 2002–04 the HDA publishes evidence briefings on obesity, physical activity, smoking cessation and alcohol. Furthermore, the HDA produced guidance on CHD and cancer in response to and support of the national service frameworks.

  In 2004–05, the HDA will be commissioning consortium of the University of Oxford, the University of Loughborough and the South East Public Health Observatory, as an evidence and guidance collaborating

  1605W
  centre, on physical activity. The HDA is currently involved in producing guidance on the treatment and prevention of obesity in conjunction with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  Specifically in relation to men's health, the HDA will be taking men's health forward as a cross-cutting issue. As a result of the work it has undertaken, the HDA will be producing a database of intervention and prevention strategies related to men's health. There are two pieces of commissioned work on the research priorities and a mapping exercise of published and on-going research in the field of men's health.

  The HDA is focusing on the complete range of social diversity in the population, including, gender, as well as age, geography, socio-economic grouping and ethnicity. This is consistent with the Wanless II Report, published in February. The range of social diversity is reflected in all aspects of programme development and implementation across the HDA.

  A number of publications have been made available from work in this area, as follows:

  Health Development Agency (2000). Coronary Heart Disease. Guidance for implementing the preventive aspects of the national service framework. Available at http://www.hdaonline.org.uk/documents/chdframework.pdf.

  Health Development Agency (2002). Cancer Prevention. A resource to support local action in delivering The NHS Cancer Plan. Available at http://www.hda-online.org.uk/documents/ cancer prevention.pdf.

  Hillsdown M, Foster C, Naidoo B and Crombie H (2004—forthcoming). The effectiveness of public health interventions for increasing physical activity among adults: a review of reviews. Available at http://www.hda.nhs.uk/evidence/EBBD. html#pub.

  Mclean C, (2002). UK Men's Health Review. Available at http://www.hda-online.org.uk/documents/mens health mapping 10–02.doc.

  Mulvihill C, Quigley R (2003). The management of obesity and overweight: An analysis of reviews of diet, physical activity and behavioural approaches. Available at http://www.hda.nhs.uk/ evidence/EBBD.html#pub.

  Naidoo B. Edited by Quigley R, Taylor L and Warm D (2004—forthcoming). The effectiveness of public health interventions to reduce smoking initiation and increase smoking cessation: a review of reviews. Available at http://www.hda.nhs.uk/ evidence/EBBD.html#pub.

  Waller S, Naidoo B, Thorn B (2002). Prevention and reduction of alcohol misuse: Evidence briefing. Available at http:// www.hda.nhs.uk/evidence/EBBD.html#pub. Watson J (2004—forthcoming). Men and health: Report of a Delphi study to scope themes for evidence-based reviews.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute mental illness beds were available(a) for the elderly, (b) for children, (c) for other age groups and (d) in secure units in 2002–03 in the area covered by Newcastle Primary Care Trust; and what the occupancy rates were in each case. [157049]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In 2002–03, there were no mental illness beds at the Newcastle Primary Care Trust. However, figures for the Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland Mental Health National Health Service Trust for the same period are shown in the table.
  1606W

  Available bed days

  Occupied bed days

  Percentage occupancy rate

  Mental illness: elderly short stay

  125

  110

  80.0

  Mental illness: elderly long stay

  125

  114

  91.2

  Mental illness: children

  20

  14

  70.0

  Mental illness: children long stay

  0

  0

  0

  Mental illness: other ages/sec ure

  49

  45

  91.8

  Mental illness: other ages/short stay

  314

  250

  79.6

  Mental illness: other ages/long stay

  94

  71

  75.5

  Source:

  Department of Health KH03 Form.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's total spending on anti-discrimination in mental health work has been over the last two years; and what the planned expenditure is for the next two years. [158558]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department conducts its anti discrimination in mental health work through the "Mind out for mental health" campaign. Campaign spending over the last two years is shown in the table.

  £

  Spending

  2002–03

  905,662

  2003–04

  1824,305

  1 Forecast of final outturn.

  Decisions on expenditure for mental health anti discrimination work for the next two years have not yet been made.

  Needlestick Injury
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish guidelines to NHS staff on needlestick injury. [158690]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is in the process of producing new guidance on the Management of Occupational Health and Safety Services in the national health service in response to the National Audit Office Report, "A Safer Place to Work—improving the management of health and safety risks to staff in the NHS". The new guidance will include comprehensive new guidelines on the management of needlesticks. It is due to be published later this year.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the recruitment of NHS dentists in Blackpool North and Fleetwood. [157913]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Blackpool Primary Care Trust (PCT) is addressing the issue of recruitment by developing access to services through facilities and staff employed at the Fylde Coast Medical services. Wyre PCT has taken a number of steps to address current vacancies. These include:

  a dental surgery within ,t proposed new primary care centre to be built in 2005;

  a golden hello for new practitioners in the area; and

  an advert in the February edition of the British Dental Journal.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average distance for people to access NHS dentists is in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley. [157087.
  1607W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The average direct distances from postcodes in Lancashire and Chorley to the nearest dentist are 0.67 miles and 0.77 miles respectively.

  NHS Financial Reforms
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there will be a risk fund for all NHS trusts implementing the new financial flows reforms over the next five years. [154146]

  Mr. Hutton
  We do not expect such a fund will be necessary from 2005–06 onwards for either national health service trusts or NHS foundation trusts. This is because methodology to address the costs of highly complex and specialised cases within the tariff is planned to be developed for implementation from 2005–06.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the size of the risk fund needed to implement the national tariff payment by results system across all NHS trusts; and if he will make a statement. [152821]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 2004–05, we are considering allocating up to £50 million to specialist and teaching first wave national health service foundation trusts which are implementing the full transition to payment by results a year ahead of the rest of the NHS. The funding will be made available to address the costs of highly complex and specialised cases for first wave applicants for 2004–05, because the methodology to address these costs within the national tariff will not be ready for implementation until 2005–06. These funds will be available for 2004–05 only.

  NHS Obsolete Equipment
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the(a) value and (b) type of obsolete but working NHS equipment that was discarded in 2003. [158787]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No assessment has been made of the amount of obsolete but working equipment in the national health service. However the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency is involved in several initiatives to look at how unwanted but working items can be disposed of most efficiently.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been commissioned by his Department into the attitudes of staff in the NHS since 1997. [154988]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health Policy Research Programme has funded research on a range of issues in the national health service which has included components whereby staff's attitudes have been sought across a range of issues. Research containing a significant element on staff attitudes has been commissioned on topics including:

  cohort studies of nurses' careers;

  cohort studies of doctors' careers;

  1608W

  the attractiveness of the NHS as an employer;

  the establishment of the role of nurse consultant;

  the establishment of the role of modern matron;

  the extension of nurse prescribing;

  the retention of women in the primary care nursing workforce after the age of 50;

  benchmarking and bowel care in community home settings;

  vaccinating health workers against influenza;

  labour costs, clinical outcomes and staff attitudes;

  health infomatics education for health professionals;

  staff satisfaction, patient satisfaction and patient outcomes;

  overseas doctors' experiences and expectations of training in the UK;

  the attractiveness of the NHS as an employer to potential nursing and allied health professionals staff;

  staff involvement in the NHS.

  A list of Policy Research Programme projects have been placed in the Library.

  In addition, NHS trusts are required to conduct staff opinion surveys and 10 core questions about staff involvement and communications were added to local surveys in 2001 and 2002 and the results fed into performance ratings. From 2003 Commission for Health Improvement took over responsibility for conducting national NHS staff opinion surveys which will assess staff attitudes to a number of areas of their work.

  NHS Trust Documents
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 12 February 2004,Official Report, column 1695, on NHS trust documents, whether his Department collects and retains copies of (a) Mersey Regional Ambulance Service's lone worker policy and (b) the job description of its communications manager; and for what reason it has not obtained a copy of Ms Pearl Browne's report on the management of the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service. [157612]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 3 March 2004]: The Department does not routinely collect copies of Mersey Regional Ambulance Service's lone worker policy and the job description of its communications manager. The Pearl Brown report on the management of the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service is a confidential report commissioned solely by the trust and neither the Department nor the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority had any input to it.

  NHS Trust Finance
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether public dividend capital on the balance sheets of NHS hospital trusts is classified as debt. [159302]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer on 5 March 2005]: National Health Service trusts account for public dividend capital (PDC) as equity. PDC is a form of public sector financing which does not conform to the standard accounting definitions of equity and debt used in the private sector. It is more akin to an equity stake than a loan, as it is remunerated by dividend rather than fixed or variable interest.

  Nursing
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses have come to the UK from abroad in each of the last five years to work in the NHS; and from which countries. [158975]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  The Nursing and Midwifery Council holds information on the number of nurses registering to practise in the United Kingdom each year from overseas. This information can be found at www.nmc-uk.org.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what marketing his Department is undertaking to attract nurses from abroad to work in the NHS. [158976]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has agreements with the Governments of the Philippines, Spain, Indonesia and India to recruit nurses into the national nealth service. Our embassies market nursing campaigns through websites, conferences and advertising.

  In addition, project leads based in the United Kingdom co-ordinate advertising and marketing.

  The Department has developed a website, www.nursinguk.nhs.uk, aimed at supporting nurses from abroad who wish to come and work in the NHS.

  Information on how to apply independently to the NHS, together with information about registration is available on the Department's website at www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/HumanResourcesAndTraining/MoreStaff/fs/en.

  Obesity
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of obesity-related illness and death. [156085]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are concerned at the impact of obesity on health and are committed to addressing the current trend in both children and adults. Prevention and management of obesity is already at the heart of the Government's priority areas, including coronary heart disease, cancer and diabetes.

  The Government launched their major consultation on public health this month. The Public Health White Paper will provide the overarching framework for all Government efforts to improve public health. The consultation will enable a wide range of stakeholders to contribute to the debate on overweight and obesity. The consultation will also take account of the recommendations from Derek Wanless recent report "Securing Good Health for the Whole Population". The Government will draw up their White Paper in the light of the consultation . This will present real opportunities to progress work on the prevention and management of overweight and obesity. A planned obesity summit will form an important part of the consultation process. Work has already started through the food and health action plan and the activity co-ordination team, which will be of direct relevance to the prevention and management of obesity.
  1610W
  Locally, primary care trusts as local providers and commissioners of services will determine the most appropriate methods to deliver health care to their populations, based on clinical need and effectiveness, as well as local circumstance, drawing on the available evidence. Under the new general medical services contract from April 2004 practices will be required to offer consultation for chronic disease and related health problems (such as obesity), offer relevant health promotion advice to patients and refer patients to other treatment that may be necessary.

  There are 10 specialised obesity clinics for adults and seven for children in England. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence's guidance on drugs and surgery is already available. NICE, collaborating with the Health Development Agency, have been tasked by the Department of Health to develop guidance on the identification, prevention and management of obesity and maintenance of weight reduction, due in 2006.

  Patients Choice Scheme
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the qualifying criteria are for patients who wish to take advantage of the patient choice scheme; [159133]

  (2) how patients can opt into the patient choice scheme; and if he will list the hospitals in the South East which take on patients under that scheme for each category of treatment; [159134]

  (3) how many patients have taken advantage of the patient choice scheme to reduce treatment waiting time. [159135]

  Mr. Hutton
  The London patient choice project and the cardiac choice project offer choice of treatment in an alternative hospital to clinically appropriate patients waiting longer than six months for surgery in the specialties of ophthalmology, orthopaedics, general surgery, ear, nose and throat, urology and cardiac surgery.

  In both schemes, eligible patients are contacted by a patient care adviser and offered choice of hospital and appointment.

  The cardiac choice scheme is a national scheme which started in July 2002. Since then, 6,089 patients have been offered choice and 3,034, or 51 per cent., have opted for treatment elsewhere.

  The London patient choice project is a pan-London scheme which started in October 2002. Since then. 17,133 patients have been offered choice and 10,850, or 63 per cent., have chosen to have treatment at another hospital.

  There are seven ether choice pilots in England but these are not routinely monitored.

  Hospitals in the South East (defined here as London, the South East and East Anglia) which can take patients under the cardiac choice scheme are:

  National health service trusts

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  Barts and the London NHS Trust

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  1611W

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  St. Mary's NHS Trust

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  UK independent sector hospitals

  BMI London Independent

  BUPA Cambridge

  BUPA Chalybeate, Southampton

  HCA Harley Street Clinic

  HCA London Bridge Hospital

  HCA Wellington Hospital

  King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst, Sussex.

  There are a number of hospitals outside of the South East which can also take patients under the cardiac choice scheme.

  Hospitals in London which can take patients under the London patient choice scheme are:

  National health service trusts

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust

  Epsom and St. Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust

  Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  St Mary's NHS Trust

  University College London Hospital NHS Trust

  UK independent sector hospitals

  HCA Lister

  HCA Portland

  HCA Princess Grace.

  Pest Infestations
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pest infestations he estimates there were in NHS hospitals in each year since 1996 in(a) England and (b) each strategic health authority.[158542]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally. It is for individual national health service hospitals to make their own arrangements to deal with, or otherwise ensure the prevention of, pest infestations.

  The NHS has recently been reminded of the need to ensure that proper control procedures are in place. Action Area Three (Reducing Reservoirs of Infection) of "Winning Ways", the Chief Medical Officer's Report on measures to tackle healthcare associated infections, requires that
  "all healthcare settings should aim to eradicate pests such as rats, mice, ants, cockroaches pigeons and flies".

  Physiotherapists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there were for physiotherapists in each NHS region in each year since 1999. [158519]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of physiotherapy vacancies lasting three months or more is shown in the table. As at March 2003, there were 671 such vacancies in England, which equates to a rate of 4.7 per cent., a fall from 5.2 per cent. the year before.

  NHS hospital and community health services: Three month vacancies for qualified physiotherapy staff in Government Office Regions and England as at 31 March each specified year

  Three month vacancy numbers

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  England

  425

  512

  655

  715

  671

  North East

  12

  27

  31

  56

  25

  North West

  63

  78

  78

  64

  45

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  33

  40

  62

  81

  70

  East Midlands

  27

  31

  40

  61

  38

  West Midlands

  69

  66

  84

  93

  71

  East Of England

  53

  75

  57

  43

  98

  London

  98

  101

  164

  180

  175

  South East

  48

  74

  107

  77

  107

  South West

  21

  19

  32

  62

  42

  Notes:

  Three month vacancy information is as at 31 March 2003.

  Three month vacancies are vacancies which trusts are actively trying to which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2003.

  Pulmonary Disease
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines on the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary and secondary care; and if he will make a statement; [155109]

  (2) whether, following the recommendations by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, he will make it a priority for all hospitals and general practitioner surgeries to have access to (a) a spirometer and (b) adequate training in the use of spirometry; [155112]

  (3) what steps he will take following the recommendations by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to ensure that all patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have access to a multidisciplinary healthcare team;[155110]

  (4) whether, following the recommendations by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, he will make it a priority for all hospitals and general practitioner surgeries to have access to non-invasive ventilation for the treatment of people with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; [155111]

  (5) if, following the recommendations by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, he will provide funding for pulmonary rehabilitation courses to run in every hospital for all patients who consider themselves functionally disabled by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. [155113]
  1613W
  Dr. Ladyman
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 March 2004, c. 1167–68W]: I regret that my previous response was incorrect, and should have read as follows.

  As part of our commitment to improve services for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) we commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to prepare clinical guidelines for the National Health Service in England and Wales for the prevention, diagnosis, management and treatment of COPD. These guidelines were published on 25 February.

  Now that the guidelines have been published primary care trusts, in partnership with local stakeholders, will decide what local service improvements need to be made. They have the responsibility for deciding what services to provide for their populations, including those with COPD and other respiratory diseases. They are best placed to understand local health needs and commission services to meet them.

  The NHS is currently receiving the largest sustained increase in funding in its history. The total of PCT allocations for the next three years are £45 billion for 2003–04, £49.3 billion for 2004–05 and £53.9 billion for 2005–06. This represents an increase of £12.7 billion or an average of 30.8 per cent. over the three years 2003–04 to 2005–06. PCTs will use these allocations to implement local service improvements, which may include NICE's recommendations on COPD.

  Radiographers
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many radiographers there were in the UK in each year since 1990 in terms of(a) whole-time equivalents and (b) the total employed. [158824]

  Mr. Hutton
  The available information is shown in the table. Between 1997 and 2002, the number of radiographers by headcount employed in the national health service has increased by 11 per cent. Whole-time equivalent radiographers have increased by 10 per cent.

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified radiography staff in England by area of work as at 30 September each specified year

  whole-time equivalent

  Diagnostic radiographers

  Therapeutic radiographers

  1990

  1—

  1,206

  1991

  7,539

  1,139

  1992

  7,777

  1,152

  1993

  1—

  1,186

  1994

  7,989

  1,190

  1995

  8,065

  1,056

  1996

  8,527

  1,174

  1997

  8,626

  1,275

  1998

  8,860

  1,333

  1999

  9,009

  1,358

  2000

  9,169

  1,309

  2001

  9,264

  1,391

  2002

  9,489

  1,374

  headcount

  1990

  1—

  1,296

  1991

  8,891

  1,243

  1992

  9,210

  1,267

  1993

  1—

  1,320

  1994

  9,520

  1,323

  1614W

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified radiography staff in England by area of work as at 30 September each specified year

  whole-time equivalent

  Diagnostic radiographers

  Therapeutic radiographers

  1995

  10,294

  1,252

  1996

  10,265

  1,308

  1997

  10,364

  1,407

  1998

  10,645

  1,473

  1999

  10,839

  1,491

  2000

  11,036

  1,453

  2001

  11,163

  1,543

  2002

  11.489

  1,542

  1 not available

  Note:

  A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Recruitment Advertising
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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 and (b) in the form of other general recruitment advertising. [155526]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Figures for advertising vacant posts are shown in the table.

  Year ( 1 April to 31 Match)

  Recruitment budget spend (£)

  2003 to date

  146,331.25

  2002–03

  345,229.15

  The figures shown in the table do not include the Department's agencies. Figures prior to the year 2002–03 are not available.

  The figures for general recruitment advertising are shown in the table.

  Expenditure (£ million)

  2001–02

  5

  2002–03

  4.3

  2003–04

  4.9 (estimated)

  Details of where advertisements are placed are not centrally recorded, and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Where advertisements are placed will depend on the nature of the vacancies or target audience.

  The Department has a robust external recruitment policy which complies with the rules and requirements of "Minister's Rules for Selection", "The Civil Service Order in Council", Treasury and equal opportunity and employment protection legislation.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department has spent on recruitment advertising in each year since 1997. [156451]
  1615W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) today.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recommendations he has received from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on making Humira available on prescription in the NHS in England for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis; and if he will make a statement.[159479]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has not yet been asked to produce any guidance on Humira for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis but the suitability of Humira for referral to NICE is under consideration.

  Saxon Square Health Centre
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 26 February 2004,Official Report, columns 555–56W, on Saxon Square Health Centre (Christchurch), for what reasons it is not in the best interests of the NHS for further negotiations to be held immediately with the head leaseholder; with which NHS trust negotiations are taking place for a transfer of the leasehold; when discussions began; and when he expects them to conclude. [159285]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 March 2004]: The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch National Health Service Trust has expressed an interest to occupy this health centre.

  Negotiations with the trust commenced in October 2003 and they will be completed as soon as possible. Progress is dependent on the costs to be incurred by the trust to occupy these offices.

  Where property is held on a lease, it is usual that the head lessee will only be approached when a fully appraised proposal has been prepared.

  School Nurses
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many school nurse whole-time equivalents were employed in each of the primary care trusts in Greater London for each of the last five years. [158411]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Sexual Health
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of sexually transmitted diseases were treated by the NHS in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [158091]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the number of cases of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) treated by the national health service is not routinely collected. However, data is collected on the number of diagnoses of STIs made in genito-urinary medicine clinics. These are shown in the table for the years 1992 to 2002.
  1616W

  Number of diagnoses of sexually transmitted diseases made in genitor-urinary medicine clinics in England: 1992 to 2002

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1992

  177,064

  195,218

  372,282

  1993

  170,520

  193,286

  363,806

  1994

  178,866

  212,010

  390,876

  1995

  196,943

  231,567

  428,510

  1996

  202,465

  249,438

  451,903

  1997

  216,916

  264,976

  481,892

  1998

  228,963

  277,945

  506,908

  1999

  242,087

  291,703

  533,790

  2000

  260,899

  309,173

  570,072

  2001

  277,636

  331,090

  608,726

  2002

  295,411

  348,988

  644,399

  Source:

  KC60 statutory returns from GUM clinics.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage best practice in sexual health promotion among vulnerable communities in London. [159172]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) provide sexual health promotion services which meet the needs of their local populations. To support them in this role, in 2003, the Department published good practice guidance for use by PCTs and others on both the commissioning of sexual health services and effective sexual health promotion. These documents include guidance on working with communities most at risk of poor sexual health and HIV. In addition, the Department undertakes nationally funded sexual health promotion, targeting those groups most at risk of HIV, including activities in the London area.

  A joint project by the five London strategic health authorities is on-going to develop a framework for modernising sexual health services across London.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to increase awareness of sexually transmitted diseases among(a) heterosexual and (b) homosexual males. [159193]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Through the Department's sexual health promotion work, we are raising public awareness of sexual health nationally through activities such as the Sex Lottery campaign. This targets 18 to 30-year-olds in raising awareness of sexually transmitted infections. Campaign materials include those specifically targeting young men, such as ambient materials in pubs and clubs (including men's washrooms) and advertisements in men's magazines.

  The Department is funding the Men's Health Forum to investigate men's perception and attitudes towards chlamydia, the most common sexually transmitted infection, and to identify the best ways to target men (both with information and for screening).

  The Department is also currently committing £1 million a year to support the Medical Research Council's sexual health and HIV research programme. Men at increased risk of sexually transmitted infections and HIV are a focus of a number of existing projects, and will be highlighted in future calls for new research, under this programme.

  Gay and bisexual men are identified in the sexual health strategy as one of the groups disproportionately affected by poor sexual health. For these men, the

  1617W
  Department contracts the Terrence Higgins Trust to undertake targeted sexual health promotion and HIV prevention, in partnership with community based organisations across the country.

  In addition to this national work, primary care trusts are responsible for meeting the sexual health needs of their local populations. The sexual health promotion toolkit (2003) provides guidance and practical advice to those working in the field of sexual health promotion. It includes specific tips and good practice for working with men of all ages to ensure that they are proactively targeted and services are open and welcoming to men.

  Smoking
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 7 January 2004,Official Report, column 398W, on smoking, when he will publish the findings of the research on the success of the NHS Stop Smoking Service. [159321]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health commissioned a team led by Glasgow University to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the impact and effectiveness of the national health services stop smoking services.

  The first results of this evaluation were published in September 2003. "Bauld L et al. Impact of UK national health service smoking cessation services: variations in outcomes in England. Tobacco Control 2003; 12:296–301". The key finding was that "Well-developed, evidence-based NHS services, reflecting good practice, are yielding positive outcomes." The final results of the studies are due to be published in autumn 2004.

  A copy of the research has been placed in the Library.

  Sudden Death (Cardiac Conditions)
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to offer treatment to people of all ages who are susceptible to sudden death due to underlying cardiac conditions that if not treated may result in a fatal cardiac arrhythmia. [159826]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 9 March 2004]: The Government are committed to ensuring further improvements in these services and are discussing this matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) in the context of the Cardiac Risk in the Young (Screening) Bill, which is due for second reading on Friday 12 March.

  Surgical Instruments (Reuse)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his Department's guidance on the reuse of surgical instruments after brain biopsies. [158515]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Guidance on the reuse of surgical instruments after brain procedures, including biopsy, on patients known to have, or be at risk of CJD is already published in "Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy agents: safe working and the prevention of infection". This guidance, endorsed by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens, is available at the Department's website at: www.dh.gov.uk/1618W
  PolicyAndGuidance/HealthAndSocialCareTopics/CJD/CJDGeneralInformation/CJDGeneralArticle/fs/ en?CONTENT ID = 4031067&chk = 4gOe2r. A copy is also available in the Library.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the last average in-patient wailing time for(a) England, (b) each region and (c) strategic health authority for each year since 1996. [159737]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows average (median) waiting times for elective inpatient admissions.

  Average (median) waiting times for elective in-patient admission: England and strategic health authorities: position at 31 December 2003

  England/SHA

  Median waiting times (months)

  England

  2.59

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire HA

  2.67

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire HA

  2.75

  Essex HA

  2.64

  North West London HA

  2.46

  North Central London HA

  2.70

  North East London HA

  2.73

  South East London HA

  2.55

  South West London HA

  2.55

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  2.46

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  2.65

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire HA

  2.58

  West Yorkshire HA

  2.52

  Cumbria and Lancashire HA

  2.52

  Greater Manchester HA

  2.42

  Cheshire and Merseyside HA

  2.39

  Thames Valley HA

  2.40

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight HA

  2.81

  Kent and Medway HA

  3.39

  Surrey and Sussex HA

  2.74

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire HA

  2.90

  South West Peninsula HA

  3.08

  Somerset and Dorset HA

  2.33

  South Yorkshire HA

  2.42

  Trent HA

  2.40

  Leicestershire, Northampton ihire and Rutland HA

  2.56

  Shropshire and Staffordshire HA

  2.68

  Birmingham and The Black Country HA

  2.09

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire HA

  2.61

  Note:

  The figures shown are estimates based on aggregate data, categorised into waiting time bands, and do not reflect shifts in the waiting time profiles within these bands, only between bands. The median is not very sensitive to reductions in maximum waiting times, and it is possible to see a rise in the median, whilst reducing maximum waiting times because of shifts in low time bands. Short-term progress on delivering maximum waiting times (including tackling the longest waiters) will not necessarily translate into a reduction in the median waiting time. Our policy, therefore, is to focus attention on the number of patients waiting the longest, and in each waiting time band

  Source:

  Department of Health form QF01.

  For information on average waiting times for previous years I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave on 4 February 2004, Official Report, column 977W.

  Work Force Census
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the publication date of the report on NHS hospital and community health services non-medical work force census, England: 30 September 2003—detailed results as stated on his Department's website was put back from 26 February to 19 March. [158220]
  1619W
  Mr. Hutton
  Publication was deferred in order to be more helpful to people using the data by publishing detailed information, which would not otherwise have been ready, on the same day as summary information.

  Yellow Card Scheme
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend the yellow card reporting scheme to allow narrative testimonies from patients. [158529]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is piloting a scheme to allow patients to report suspected adverse drug reaction via NHS Direct. Patients in the catchment area of the South East London NHS Direct site are currently able to contact NHS Direct to report suspected adverse drug reactions, and the scheme is to be extended to other NHS Direct sites in due course.
  1620W
  Following an increase in the number of requests for access to Yellow Card data, an independent review is being undertaken by Dr. Jeremy Metters. The steering committee, set up to assist the review, has consulted widely with key stakeholders. The review is considering whether there can be improved involvement of patients in the scheme, which may include enabling patients to report suspected adverse drug reactions to the MHRA directly. The results of the review are expected to be published later this year.

  York District Hospital
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the children's assessment and treatment area at York District Hospital will be opened. [157523]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This is a local matter for York Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Documents
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  During the summer of 2003 the Government consulted stakeholders about the introduction of a charge for extension of leave to remain for immigration employment documents such as work permits. Responses to the consultation were published on 7 January 2004.

  I am announcing today that following the consultation a charge of £121 will be introduced for the consideration of each application from 1 April 2004 (within the range proposed in the consultation document). A new form for applications for leave to remain for immigration employment documents will also be introduced. A full Regulatory Impact Assessment has been carried out, and this is available from today in the House of Commons library.

  I am also announcing an increase in the fee for Convention Travel Documents, issued to refugees; Stateless Persons' Travel Documents; and one way documents of identity. From 1 April 2004 the charge for application for these documents will increase from £28 to £42 to bring fees in line with those for the UK passports. Statutory instruments that set out the regulations for the new fees and leave to remain application form will be available from today.

  Crime Reduction and Drugs Misuse
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears)
  Through the Building Safer Communities Fund I am making a total of £74 million directly available to local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships in 2004–05, to assist them in delivering their crime reduction and drugs priorities in the light of local needs.

  This will be the second year of the Building Safer Communities Fund, and builds on the progress made in 2003–04. I remain keen to help local Partnerships to focus on reducing crime through having one crime reduction funding stream, with an emphasis on less paperwork. This fund will continue to assist in strengthening Partnerships' capacity to deliver.

  The money can again be used n a variety of ways and Partnerships are showing that they can use their programme funding to deliver a wide range of interventions. They are using it to reduce gun crime; to disrupt drugs markets through direct police work; running activities designed to divert children from getting involved in crime and drugs; paying for more CCTV cameras or targeted campaigns on particular crimes or drugs hotspots; or for warden schemes. These are just examples and the views of the community are key to inform local decisions.
  102WS
  I want to continue to give Partnerships the resources and flexibility to target investment where it will reduce crime and deliver real change on the ground, in accordance with local priorities. The single fund will enable local agencies on the front line to boost the work they do to tackle crime and drug abuse.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Equal Pay
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  Along with other Government organisations DTI and its Agencies completed equal pay audits in 2003 and put in place action plans to address any concerns.

  The Cabinet Office produced an overview of audits from across the Civil Service on 27 November 2003

  (see http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/civilservice/performanceandreward/performance.html).

  All DTI organisations are already taking steps to deliver on their action plans and will review equal pay as part of future pay rounds.

  Action Plans and summaries have now been placed in the Libraries of the House and published on websites

  (see http://www.dti.gov.uk/about_dti_documents.html).

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Housing Benefit Reform
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  In October 2002, I announced a wide ranging programme of Housing Benefit reforms aimed at giving tenants choice and promoting personal responsibility. The centrepiece of those reforms is the Local Housing Allowance—a set amount allowance for housing costs based simply on household composition and location, and reflecting market rents.

  We are testing this new scheme, for tenants renting accommodation in the private sector, in nine pathfinder local authorities, representing different types of housing markets, before rolling it out nationally. When we launched the policy I promised to keep colleagues updated on progress and I know there has been interest from many hon. Members in these groundbreaking reforms. I am pleased to report as of 9 February all pathfinders are up and running and implementation has gone smoothly.

  Already some 19,000 tenants are enjoying the benefits of Local Housing Allowance in the Pathfinder areas, and a further 25,000 will transfer over the coming months.

  For tenants in the private rented sector the local housing allowance means, for the first time, they will know in advance how much they will receive towards housing costs. This greater certainty about the amount of benefit that will be paid will help people make the move from benefits to work. Tenants will be able to choose where to live and whether to spend all, less or more than this on rent, out of their total income. These are the same choices that we all make.
  103WS
  It follows that to have this freedom of choice, and to exercise this personal responsibility payments of local housing allowance are normally made to the tenant rather than the landlord.

  we recognise that some tenants, who have not been used to having those choices and responsibilities, will need help and support. We also recognise that it is important to provide safeguards for landlords against tenants who default on their rent. We are providing a range of safeguards for landlords, and support and advice for tenants.

  It is too early to provide any firm analysis but I am pleased to report that there are already signs of tenants exercising choice by negotiating rent, and moving to accommodation that is more appropriate to their needs, and that landlords are working with pathfinders and claims are being processed more quickly.

  We will continue to closely monitor and evaluate the pathfinder stage before extending the benefits of the Local Housing Allowance nationally.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Fisheries
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  Effective monitoring, control and surveillance are critical to the operation of the Common Fisheries Policy and measures to conserve fish stocks. Towards the end of last year the European Commission drew attention to shortcomings in the United Kingdom's control arrangements and compliance with the rules and regulations of the Common Fisheries Policy. Concerns have also been expressed by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts 104WS
  Committee and more recently by the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, which will report shortly on a sustainable future for the fishing industry.

  With increasing emphasis on the sustainable use of naturally occurring resources, a culture of high compliance becomes ever more important. To encourage such culture and to respond to the concerns raised by the European Commission and others, the Fisheries Departments in the UK are taking a number of measures to strengthen fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance. These include:
  consideration of moving away from the current system of criminal sanctions towards a potentially more responsive system of administrative penalties for breaches of fisheries regulations;
  improved accountability and traceability of fish landings through the designation of fish markets and the registration of all sellers and buyers of first sale fish;
  improvements in the weighing of fish before it is sold or before it leaves the port of landing for sale elsewhere;
  extending the existing arrangements for designated landing ports and for the prior notification of catch to vessels below 20 metres;
  the wider use of single area or single species licensing:
  the fitting of tamper-proof satellite position reporting terminals to all vessels over 15 metres;
  the better utilisation of resources with a greater focus on land-based inspection.

  Some measures are already being put into effect and others are or will be the subject of consultation with the industry. Together the measures will complement other action that is being taken at both national and Community level to safeguard fish stocks and the long-term interests of the fishing industry.

  A more detailed note on the action that is being taken has been placed in the library of each House and copies are to be sent to fishermen and other stakeholders.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Smoking and Women
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, on National No Smoking Day, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the estimated number of women who smoke; and what action they are taking to reduce that number.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, in England in 2001, 25 per cent of women aged 16 and over smoked cigarettes regularly; that is around 5.1 million women. We have a comprehensive strategy to tackle smoking aimed at the whole population, including ending tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship: education and media campaigns, and helping smokers to give up. We are aware that women are taking our messages to heart and that NHS smoking cessation services are used more by women than by men.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that the health risks of smoking to women have been found to be increasingly severe? What is being done to help young women not to take up smoking as opposed to stopping smoking?
Lord Warner: My Lords, before answering those questions, perhaps I may say how much the Government support the theme of today's 21st National No Smoking Day for smokers "who want out". We know that more young women have set a quit date with the help of NHS stop smoking services, which have seen a very substantial increase in take-up by young women, of around 100 per cent. The Government have published their consultation paper, Choosing Health?, setting out a number of proposals and ideas to which we are asking people to respond.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as regards the original Question tabled by the noble Baroness, does not the Minister agree that it is rather strange, because surely the action that the Government could take to reduce the number of women is to give them some more cigarettes?
Lord Warner: My Lords, perhaps we need some especially genetically modified cigarettes for that.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in the report, Smoking Cessation and Young People—Should we do more to help young smokers to quit?, produced by the Health Development Agency, the point is firmly made that most smoking cessation campaigns are directed at adults. What discussions has the department had with the HDA about running specifically targeted promotional campaigns directed at young people, and in particular at young females?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government's current campaign, while directed at adults, also shows them the impact of smoking in relation to young children and the damage it does to them. The prevalence of smoking among children is declining, falling to 10 per cent in 2002.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, what further measures are being taken to ensure that the law preventing the sale of cigarettes to people under 16 years of age is robust? Has there been an increase in the number of prosecutions of those who sell cigarettes to children under the age of 16?
Lord Warner: My Lords, enforcement is a matter for local agencies. I do not know the precise number of prosecutions, but I will write to my noble friend.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister let me know whether any research has been carried out on whether women who are heavy smokers also have problems with alcohol? If so, is there any connection with addiction?
Lord Warner: My Lords, it is quite possible that, there is research evidence on that. I do not have it, but I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend note that his condemnation of smoking is widely welcomed? However, it would be more persuasive if he were able to give an undertaking to come regularly to this House during European Union budget discussions in order to tell us precisely what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to propose the banning of tobacco subsidies in the budget, who are their allies and what success they have achieved.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I love to participate in all matters European. I take note of that kind invitation from my noble friend.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, given the strict laws relating to the age at which it is legal to consume alcohol, would not a major contribution be made towards reducing smoking by young people if smoking were banned in bars, clubs and restaurants?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we have been discussing this issue for some time in the House. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the consultation document, Choosing Health?, published last week. The Government have asked a number of questions and

1233
are awaiting the responses. Covered in those questions are matters such as: should the Government pass a law to make all enclosed workplaces and public places smoke free; what about restaurants, pubs and bars; and would local authorities be better placed than central government to introduce such laws? We want to await people's responses to that consultation paper.
Lord Chan: My Lords, women living in poorer inner-city communities, in particular those who are single parents, find it very difficult to give up smoking. What can the Government do to support them, in particular through schemes such as Sure Start and others?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I will look into that suggestion and write to the noble Lord. As I said in answer to an earlier question, women are doing better than men in using smoking cessation services. We have seen a large increase in the number of women who have managed to quit smoking, from around 19,000 in 2001 to around 40,000 in 2002–03, as a result of those services.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since 1997 total tobacco consumption in this country has gone up, compared with a marked decrease over the previous 25 years? Is he also aware that one in five of the cigarettes smoked in the UK is smuggled into the country? What are the Government doing to prevent contraband tobacco entering the UK?
Lord Warner: My Lords, in 2000, the "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling" strategy was launched to reduce the flow of smuggled cigarettes. The proportion is now down to 18 per cent rather than 20 per cent. Government investment of more than £200 million has helped to fund almost 1,000 extra Customs officers, a national network of X-ray scanners and the introduction of "duty paid" marks on legitimate packets of cigarettes.
Lord Elton: My Lords, do the Government regard nicotine impregnated chewing gum as a useful means of reducing addiction? If so, do they support its use? Will there be suitable instructions for the disposal of the gum on every packet sold?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, can the Minister say what impact smoking during pregnancy has on the birth weight of children? What impact does it have on the IQ of these children? What is the likely significance of smoking during pregnancy for the later development of children into adulthood?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government's position is clear: it is to warn women about the undesirability of smoking during pregnancy. Around 6,800 pregnant
1234
women set a quit date through NHS stop smoking services in 2002–03. About half of those had successfully quit at the four-week follow up.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in order to give a lead, do all Government Ministers undertake not to smoke?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I would not dare inquire into their personal practices in this matter.

GM Maize
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What, if commercial growing of genetically modified maize is approved, will be the anticipated effect on commercial assurance schemes, organic produce and home-grown vegetables.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we recognise that if GM crops are grown it will raise questions about the possible effect on other forms of production. As we announced yesterday, the Government will facilitate measures to enable GM, conventional and organic crops to co-exist.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Does he accept that the Government have put the cart before the horse? Surely they should have come forward with a proper legal framework and an agreed liability programme before giving approval to GM maize? Will he consider the important issue of oilseed rape? I know that the current strain has been turned down but a winter rape trial is still ongoing and, as cross-fertilisation can take place, a decision on legal liability is even more important. Can he assure the House that such liability will be agreed before any future approval is given?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Baroness. As we indicated in the Statement yesterday, no planting—even of the one crop we have approved—will be possible before Spring 2005 at the earliest. By that time, not only will the conditions of how we manage that crop be clear, but also the general conditions for co-existence and liability should be in place. We intend to consult on those terms very shortly.
Earl Peel: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the considerable misgivings expressed to date by English Nature, the independent advisory body to the Government on nature conservation issues, about the planting of GM crops. Was English Nature invited to give an opinion prior to the Government's announcement to allow the commercial cultivation of GM herbicide tolerant maize? If it did so, can the Minister tell the House what its opinion was?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in the consultation, English Nature gave its views in relation to all the GM crops being tested. It has indicated that it still has some concerns about any of them being given approval. That is reflected in some of the press coverage today. The Government obviously considered the opinion of English Nature, along with other opinions but, as we indicated yesterday, we feel that there is no scientific reason for a ban on this form of GM maize.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, while it is obviously important that the Government put in place robust structures to ensure co-existence of different types of farming if and when GM crops are introduced into this country, is it not important that the organic movement does not make a rod for its own back by differentiating between the standards required for non-contamination, to use that phrase, of conventional crops as against GM crops? Will he confirm that there is no need for it to do so under European standards for organic produce?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it would not be reasonable for the organic movement to insist that the thresholds were unachievably tight. There are, however, ongoing discussions, both at European and UK level, on whether differential thresholds should apply in relation to organic crops. The Government's position is that any such threshold, and therefore requirement on the GM producer, will have to be both feasible and verifiable if we are genuinely to protect organic crops.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Minister said yesterday in reply to questions on the Statement that he "expected" that the rules on co-existence would be in place; today he said that they "should" be in place. Can he assure the House that they "will" he in place before any planting of GM maize? This is really important, not only to the organic sector but also to conventional vegetable growers.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the conditions attached to t his particular crop, and therefore its co-existence with other crops, will undoubtedly be clear before any planting takes place. The process of consultation on the general conditions of co-existence and of liability will start as soon as possible and should be completed well before the earliest possible planting date. I see no reason why that should not happen. But complex issues are involved, particularly in relation to the liability provisions.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, does not yesterday's Statement on GM crops effectively stop them being grown? If the Government, the GM industry and the insurance industry do not accept liability for compensation to be paid for any adverse effect on the environment, will there be any farmers brave enough to grow the crops?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the approval which the Government gave was in relation to one particular crop. We do not believe that that crop, if grown according to the conditions would, in practice, contaminate conventional or organic crops. The decision whether to produce it obviously depends on the growers' and farmers' view of what the market will be and is not therefore a matter for the Government.
We have also said that if, under any form of GM crop growing in future, a liability for contamination arose, we would expect the consent holders—the GM growers—to meet that liability. But we would not, under the conditions we are attaching to this crop, expect such liability to arise.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, when the detailed results of the GM trials were published in October 2003, we were not told how many sites were used for testing the GM maize crop or the number of sites used for testing conventional maize. Can the Minister tell us how many sites used a regime including atrazine and how many did not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the exact number is available, and I can write to the noble Duke with it. However, the number of fields involving pesticide treatment which was not atrazine was limited. The rather complicated article published in Nature last week showed that 28 different comparisons can be made between atrazine and non-atrazine-treated fields in GM and conventional mode. The article makes it clear that—if and when atrazine is banned; there is enough information from the trials indicating that non-atrazine alternative pesticides would have less differentially had effects on the environment—there would still he a big advantage remaining for the GM form of cultivation.

Zimbabwe: Parliamentary Elections
2.53 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take to encourage the international community to recognise the importance of the parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe in spring 2005 being free and fair.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we and our partners in the wider international community will be making it clear to the Government of Zimbabwe that we want next year's parliamentary elections to be conducted in a process which is free, fair and transparent. The Zimbabwean people must be allowed to exercise their democratic rights without the threat of violence or intimidation. If the Government of Zimbabwe are to have any chance of the election results being taken seriously, they must agree to the independent observation and monitoring of these elections.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that statement, so far as it goes. Is she aware that in his speech in his constituency last Friday, the Prime Minister suggested that the world should be moving on from the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, the philosophy of which is that,
"a country's internal affairs are for it and you don't interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance".
That is a quote from the Prime Minister's speech. He went on to suggest that we should not now accept that regimes have a right to brutalise and repress their people, and that we should do all we can to spread the values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law, religious tolerance and justice for the oppressed. Does that apply to Zimbabwe?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I very much agree with the Prime Minister in his speech last Friday. Given his great expertise in the subject, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, is aware of the enormous and considerable pressure that the international community is bringing to bear on the regime in Zimbabwe. I cite, for instance, the very important lead that this Government took in ensuring the continued suspension of Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth and how we have worked extremely hard with our European Union partners to extend the rollover of EU sanctions.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the noble Baroness notice the report in the Guardian yesterday about the systematic violence and intimidation practised against not only the MPs of the MDC but their parliamentary candidates and supporters? Did she notice, too, the egregious Mr Jonathan Moyo's statement yesterday that journalists who took freelance work with "Voice of America" would be dealt with through the law? Under these circumstances, how is it possible for there to be free and fair elections?
While I am on my feet, may I ask whether the noble Baroness has anything to say about the British-owned aircraft which has been detained in Harare with its 64 passengers?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we have seen the story referred to in the recent breaking news on the report Playing with Fire by the South African NGO about the attacks on opposition MPs in Zimbabwe. The fact that 78 MPs and candidates have been subject to 616 attacks and other incidents is indeed shocking. We know that this has been going on for some time; for example, a by-election will soon take place in a constituency where an MP has been stabbed by ZANU-PF supporters. We pay tribute to the bravery of MDC MPs, councillors and candidates. The NGO report underlines the correctness of our Government's robust stand on Zimbabwe.
The noble Lord also asked about the press reports on a mercenary aircraft, as it is described. We are checking out these reports; the Government of Zimbabwe have not contacted us about this incident. Were British citizens among those detained, the
1238
Zimbabwean Government would have an obligation, under normal consular procedure, to inform us within 24 hours. We contacted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Zimbabwe this morning to remind them of this obligation.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, what have Her Majesty's Government done to exploit the new warm relationship with Libya and Colonel Gaddafi, and between the EU and the African Union, to stop the African Union preventing any discussion of the situation in Zimbabwe at the UN? It seems to me that it is a waste of time for us to say we disapprove—we have to get other people to disapprove. At the moment, they are not doing so because they do not know the facts and they are not being allowed to know them. I hope that at least we shall be showing the "Panorama" programme at the UN to everybody.
Secondly, are we following the latest actions of the United States Government in imposing fresh, much more troublesome financial sanctions on individual Ministers, such as Jonathan Moyo? Are we doing anything like that and what, by the way, has been the result of our financial sanctions so far?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we continue to raise the issue of Zimbabwe with Libya. We have done so in the past and will continue to do so. Those discussions are ongoing.
We were, as I am sure all noble Lords were, absolutely disgusted by the "Panorama" programme and the evidence that it gave of the training camps in Zimbabwe. We call on the Zimbabwean Government to close them down immediately. We cannot take seriously any election prospects for Zimbabwe if such camps were in operation.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, has the Minister read the speech made by President Mbeki at the opening of the South African Parliament only a few weeks ago? In giving a comment about his own country and its relationship with others in Africa, the word "Zimbabwe" never passed his lips. Have the Government made an appraisal of that important speech? What comments does the Minister have to make on it?
Baroness Crawley: No, my Lords, I have not read that speech. We continue to work very closely with the governments of South Africa and Nigeria, as well as partners in SADC, to ensure that considerable pressure is brought to bear on the Zimbabwean regime.

Cameroon
3.1 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the results of their recent talks with President Biya of Cameroon.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the Prime Minister and the President of Cameroon had a useful exchange, focusing on Cameroon's programme of democratic reform. The Prime Minister underlined the importance that we attach to transparent, free and fair elections, as evidence of Cameroon's commitment to democratic reform. We also discussed the Cameroonian Government's active engagement with the UN joint mixed commission over the Bakassi dispute.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that informative reply. What progress has been made towards setting in place the conditions for free and fair elections in Cameroon? In particular, has any reform been conducted of the electoral commission to enable it to consider complaints from people about the registration process and about restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly during the run-up to the election? Could she also say what has been done by the Cameroon Government to implement the recommendations of the Commonwealth-sponsored donors' meeting last October? Have the Government of Cameroon agreed to a visit by the Commonwealth mission to ascertain whether the conditions are in place for free and fair elections?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we remain firmly committed to supporting fair and transparent elections in Cameroon. The UK has funded the publication of the National Election Observatory's report on the 2002 legislative and municipal elections. A British consultant has been put in place to assist the government in preparing a strategy for the sensitisation and education of the electorate. We are also helping to supply literally transparent ballot boxes, so that there can be no question of stuffing ballot boxes, as has happened in many circumstances world-wide in the past. We are in close touch with the Government of Cameroon in preparations for the election and co-ordinate closely with the Commonwealth and the donor community.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether a particular aspect of the electoral process was discussed? It is one that has frequently been reported to be amiss—the accuracy of the electoral register. In all the elections that have taken place up to now, there have been reports of great difficulties for many people in getting on to the register. Therefore, the result of the election has been totally unrepresentative. Was that aspect discussed?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, among our discussions with the Cameroon Government, we have made it clear that we believe a fair and transparent registration process is key to a well-run election. As I said, we have funded a consultant to work with the Government of Cameroon, to formulate a strategy for the launch of a national public information campaign. The result will be the production of clear and concise material for the public, outlining the laws and processes of the election, including the registration process itself.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the situation in Cameroon harms the poorest the most? Does she see any sign that the government in Cameroon have any commitment at all to the achievements of the millennium development goals on the relief of poverty?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the Government of Cameroon are hoping soon to reach H IPC completion, which, as the noble Baroness will know, will involve debt relief when the completion point is reached. They have made some progress, which we commend. Of course, there is much further to go. We fully support the new developments—for example, the new legislation for the National Election Observatory, including consultation over its membership, autonomous budgets, plans for decentralised legislation and plans to establish a constitutional council and senate. They have put in place, with us, a poverty reduction strategy.

Afghanistan: Reconstruction
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the progress of reconstruction in Afghanistan.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Government make very regular assessments of progress in Afghanistan. The recent approval of the new constitution guaranteeing equal rights of women and minority groups was a real landmark. Economic growth of 30 per cent last year and the opening of Standard Chartered Bank in Afghanistan are signs of economic progress, as are the resurfacing of the Kabul-Kandahar road and the opening of the Salang road tunnel. However, many long-term challenges remain, including the holding of democratic elections and the establishment of security across the whole country.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. It is three years since the fall of the Taliban, yet Afghanistan still remains one of the poorest nations of the world. We welcome Her Majesty's Government's increase in assistance, announced this month, but, despite the achievements to date, we are seriously concerned about the country. Would the Minister agree that security remains a particular issue in the southern and eastern parts of the country? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to break the impasse on Afghanistan's paradox? Reconstruction will be stalled until there is greater security but, without more reconstruction, insecurity will continue.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. We have to get the security right in Afghanistan, or development will not happen at the kind of pace that we would all like to see. That is why the provincial

1241
reconstruction teams are being established throughout the country; there are now eight, and we hope to extend that to 13. But the difficulties in the east and the south remain, and we are continuing to work with our US colleagues and others in ISAF to bring stability to those parts of Afghanistan.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, is there now a timetable for the expansion in the number of NATO troops in Afghanistan, given the very serious security needs that have just been referred to? Do the Government support Colin Powell's proposal that NATO should be involved in Iraq from this summer? What implications does that have for NATO's involvement in Afghanistan?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that under ISAF we now have the Canadians, Germans, French, ourselves, Norway, Belgium, Turkey, Greece and Spain operating in Afghanistan. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, we are hoping that the number of provincial reconstruction teams that are looking at military and other developments within particular areas will be expanded from some eight to 13. With respect to Iraq, we shall continue to talk to our US colleagues about the best way in which to secure peace in that country.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, can the Minister tell us the latest figure for registration for elections in Afghanistan? Would she agree that the training of adequate numbers of police to ensure that elections can be free and fair is critical? Also, what is the UK's contribution to that training?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, from memory—and I shall write to the noble Earl if I have got this wrong—I think that to date we have registered over 1 million people. We are hoping to register 10 million. This is being done through eight regional centres at present and then the focus will be on rural areas. The UK has contributed significantly to that process. I shall write to the noble Earl and put a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, Al'Qaeda is still assumed to be based in Afghanistan. Would not any further participation in improving Afghanistan by the United States and ourselves help to suppress Al'Qaeda?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is continuing concern about the activities of Taliban forces and Al'Qaeda in Afghanistan. This is a major threat and we are working closely not only with our US colleagues on this but also with Pakistan and other countries in the region.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the proportion of women in the voters registered so far is very low? Can she say whether this is being given any degree of priority and whether the people doing the registration are encouraged to try to persuade women to take part in the political process?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have been concerned about the low numbers of women being registered. We were very pleased with the outcome of the constitutional talks, as a result of which 25 per cent of the Members of the national Parliament will be women and equal rights for women have been enshrined. We shall continue to work to try to improve the number of women who are registered but, particularly in the rural areas where registration has not yet taken place, we are concerned that this may be a major problem.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the impressive economic growth in Afghanistan. Does she know what proportion of that economic growth relates to the re-emergence of the drugs trade in Afghanistan? What does she see as the interrelationship between the emergence of money from drugs and the insecurity that clearly exists in that country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is clearly a relationship between the re-emergence of drugs and the security situation but it is not the only problem. I am not able directly to answer my noble friend's question with respect to economic growth. I can say that we think that the livelihoods of 20 to 30 per cent of rural Afghans are at least partially dependent on growing opium poppies so we have must find some form of alternative livelihood. Our strategy is to try to get rid of opium production, to work with the Afghans to improve their interception of drugs and, at the same time, to work to provide alternative livelihoods.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I think that it is our turn.
In view of the obvious interest that the House has shown in these issues, and in view of the importance of the commitment that we have made as a country to Afghanistan and Iraq, is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done to keep people properly informed on current progress in both those important countries? Will she consider whether there are better ways in which the House and the country could be more regularly informed on progress in the range of issues in which there is great interest?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am very happy to talk to noble Lords about whether there are alternative ways in which we can keep noble Lords informed. A great deal of information is available on the DfID website. I regularly draw the attention of noble Lords to it. We do not print it off and put it in the Library of the House, but I can look at whether that would be helpful to noble Lords. My right honourable friend Hilary Benn frequently makes Written Statements on this issue in another place that I then sign off in this House. If there are other ways in which noble Lords would like to be kept informed, I would be happy to hear of them.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister give us any information about the formation of a national army under the central government? I understand that it has been bedevilled by recruits joining and then deserting. Has this anything to do with them not being paid enough or not being paid regularly? If so, could they not be funded from an international fund that would, perhaps, ensure that they would stay?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there are two ways in which we are seeking to support the Afghans with the development of a national army. First, there is a process of demobilisation from the forces that currently exist and reintegration, which particularly tries to get rid of the weaponry that is still around in Afghanistan. Secondly, there is a process of security sector reform that looks not just at the army but also at the police and other law enforcement agencies. It is important that the Afghans are taking these matters into their own hands.

Business of the House: Recess Dates
3.16 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, I should like to make a brief statement on recess dates. In October last year, I said that, subject to progress of business, the House would rise for the Easter Recess on Thursday, 8 April and return on Monday, 19 April. I also gave details of recess dates up to October this year, which was perhaps a brave, if not foolhardy, thing to do. But it is something that I intend to do my utmost to try to adhere to. I also said that we would try and get as close as possible to Commons recess dates, for all sorts of useful reasons. As the House may have noticed, the Commons have since announced different recess dates. They have extended the Easter Recess to give it another week. I would dearly like to match that. I can say that there has been some progress in the right direction and I am able to inform the House that, subject, as ever, to the progress of business, this House will rise on Tuesday, 6 April and it will return, as previously announced, on Monday, 19 April.

Tobacco Smoking (Public Places and Workplaces) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to limit tobacco smoking in public places, including workplaces, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Faulkner of Worcester.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Skidelsky and the Lord Sutherland of Houndwood set down for today shall each be limited to 2½ hours.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Energy Bill [H.L.]
3. 19 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 to 11,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 12 and 13,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 14 to 27,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 28 to 35,

Schedule 5,

Clause 36,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 37 to 41,

Schedule 7,

Clause 42,

Schedule 8,

Clause 43,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 44 to 47,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 48 and 49,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 50 to 57,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 58 and 59,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 60 to 65,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 66 to 71,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 72 to 87,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 88 to 115,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 116 to 118,

Schedule 18,

Clauses 119 and 120,

Schedule 19,

Clauses 121 to 136,

Schedules 20 and 21,

Clauses 137 to 150,

Schedule 22,

1245

Clauses 151 to 168,

Schedule 23,

Clause 169.—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public/Private Partnerships
3.19 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky rose to call attention to the role of public/private partnerships in improving the performance of the public sector; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to have won the Cross-Bench ballot for this debate, which introduces a topic that I think is important not only in the politics of this country but in the politics of most developed countries in the world.
In the beginning there was capitalism; then there was socialism; now there is the Third Way. At least that is the version of history dearest to the heart of new Labour. At the heart of the Third Way is public/private partnership, or PPP as I shall call it. It is the latest of the attempts to overcome the old divide between capital and labour, the private and the public: to get everyone humming the same tune, contributing to the grand harmony. I once asked the Prime Minister whether he was a Hegelian. He looked a bit startled. But it is, in truth, an effort at a new synthesis, a way of overcoming the old divisions which ramify in our minds.
Public/private partnership challenges both conventional market economics and our political tradition. Conventional economics suggest the need for a fairly small set of public goods provided through the tax system as complementing, and even underpinning, a market economy. In the British political tradition there is a rigid separation of the public and the private sectors, with different chains of accountability. The public sector is accountable to Ministers, who, through Parliament, are accountable to the public. In the private sector, the chain runs from managers to shareholders and, through market competition, to consumers. The public sector is supposed to meet social demand, the private sector individual demand. In the private sector, profit is supposed to be the spur to activity; in the public sector it is something called service, or the "public service ethic". Even in the post-war mixed economy the two sectors were kept separate, with different logics and different incentives. PPP claims to overcome this divide, hence its claim to be a genuine Third Way.
What is PPP? It is an umbrella term covering a large variety of efforts to forge partnerships between public and private sectors in delivering goods and services. Both sectors are deemed to be stakeholders in a giant enterprise called Great Britain. The IPPR sees PPP as a,
"risk-sharing relationship based on an agreed aspiration between the public and private (including voluntary) sectors to bring about a desired public policy outcome".
1246
In the notion of an "agreed aspiration" lies much of the attraction, and perhaps naivety, of PPP.
In practice PPP is somewhat narrower than that. Its key principle—and this is what I want to emphasise—is that the Government buy goods and services from the private sector rather than producing them themselves. As one commentator writes:
"Governments have increasingly asked non profit and for profit enterprises to carry out their politically-mandated objectives".
The Government set the goals, using private enterprise as the tool. The philosophy underlying this approach is portentously known as the "purchaser-provider split". The public have come to expect that certain services will be collectively paid for through taxes. But there is no reason why the Government should produce these services themselves if they can outsource them. The private sector provides, the public sector pays.
An alternative application of the purchaser-provider split is that of the "internal market". Here the purchaser, the buyer, need not be a public agency buying services on behalf of the consumer, but the consumer himself or herself, equipped with the buying power to choose between different providers. The purest example of this approach is that of the voucher. Its advantage is that it adds consumer choice to the public-private mix. The voucher in its pure form has almost never been tried in this country but the principle that public money follows consumer choice has made headway in both the NHS and the public education sector, though not so far, as far as I know, in the Prison Service. The principle of the internal market, then, is that we do not privatise supply; we try to privatise demand.
One can trace the history of this grand synthesis from the 1980s. It began with "contracting out", when the Thatcher government forced local authorities and nationalised industries to put out to tender services hitherto provided by public sector workforces. Notable examples were street cleaning, refuse collection, school meals, railway catering and hospital laundries. Even Her Majesty's School Inspectorate was outsourced at that time. Then, housing associations were created to build and manage housing estates on behalf of local authorities. Charities were subsidised to run services such as long-term health care. Finally, in 1992, came the private finance initiative, or PFI, whereby the public sector contracted with private companies to design, build, maintain, and in some cases operate public assets such as schools, hospitals, prisons and roads for a period of up to 30 years.
The dominant motive behind all these activities was the desire to provide an improved service at reduced cost—the El Dorado of cash-strapped governments—by engaging the self-interest and business skills of the private sector, and the philanthropic motives of the voluntary sector. Governments were forced to respond both to growing fiscal problems and to growing public dissatisfaction with the public services. Cynically, one may say that outsourcing was seen as the royal road to downsizing, or simply disciplining, mutinous public

1247
sector workforces. The private finance initiative added a more specific motive to this drive: to improve the presentation of the public accounts.
That is a somewhat technical matter, but it is important in understanding the evolution of public/private partnership. I am not just talking about getting a chunk of investment off budget by getting private consortia to raise the capital themselves. That, of course, was an attractive route for governments trying to improve satisfaction with the public services without raising politically unpopular taxes or incurring deficits which frightened the markets. I am also talking about the need to improve public sector productivity. The conventional wisdom used to be that public sector activities were inherently unproductive because they were so labour intensive. Therefore, national accounts priced inputs, not outputs. The consequence was that any increase in the public sector wages bill automatically showed up as an increase in the share of public spending in GDP. That was a nightmare for any government trying to control public spending, and especially for the Thatcher and Major governments who were trying to find room for tax cuts as well. However, it was also a nightmare for a Labour Government trying to justify increases in public spending by improvements in public services.
PFI was a device that promised to overcome that problem. The Government set private firms performance targets, leaving them free to choose the mix of inputs necessary to deliver the government objectives. Innovation is therefore built into the tendering process. The key argument is that PFI transfers risk. Because its own capital is at stake, a private consortium will deliver projects quicker and at a lower unit cost than a government department. Further, the long-term nature of the contract means that the contractor is forced to integrate design, building, maintenance and, if need be, the running of the facility into a single profit-making scheme. To put it simply: he is forced to design and build facilities whose running costs are likely to be less than those of a government department. The public realise they are getting better value for money and warm to the public sector. At least that is the theory.
How has it worked out in practice? Contracts under the public finance initiative are expected to account for an estimated £5 billion of public sector investment this year, which is about 11 per cent of the total. The Treasury does not expect that to increase. In fact. however, that presentation is misleading. Strip away depreciation and asset sales, and PFI accounts for about a quarter of public sector investment; and in some areas it is much higher. For example, 64 out of 68 hospitals built or ordered since 1997 have been under PFI contracts. Practically the whole of the new generation of our public infrastructure—hospitals, schools, roads, prisons, railways—is being built through PFI. Private companies such as Group 4 and Securicor not only build but also run prisons. Although technically owned by the Government and known as Her Majesty's Prison Service—I believe that it still is—they are to all intents and purposes in the private sector, operating under licence. In the United
1248
States there is the "charter" school movement whereby private companies or groups of parents are licensed and given a "charter" to run publicly funded schools. Early signs are that it will be one of the next developments of PPP.
The long-term benefits of PPP are still unknown because no one knows whether any of the private finance initiative projects will make a profit. It may be that, as in the railway boom of the 1840s, a new infrastructure for this country will have been built at a loss in a burst of fashionable enthusiasm. The main finding so far is that PFI has drastically reduced overruns on time and budgets compared with a conventional procurement process, but it has not achieved significant cost savings. That may partly be due to the cost of the tendering process itself. The main benefit of PPP as a whole may simply be that it raises the learning curve of the public sector. The threat of bringing in private contractors is itself a stimulus to innovation by public sector providers.
I turn briefly to some problems and then a couple of further possibilities. The first problem—it is a very serious one—is the blurring of accountability. When something goes wrong, who is responsible? I refer to unexpected events and new technologies that were not built into the original plan. The temptation for each side to blame the other, for risk transfer to become blame transfer, will become irresistible. Who is responsible to the consumer as a consumer in this rather cosy bipartisan partnership between two groups of producers?
Then there is the problem of bureaucracy. Every act of outsourcing requires a new act of regulation. This accounts for the paradox that the shrinking of state ownership and provision has led to a big increase in regulation. PPP is not the only cause of this, but I judge it to be an important contributory factor. That increase in regulation reflects the ambiguity in the purposes of PPP. Are the motives for it fiscal window dressing or more efficient services—value for money? Or is it an attempt to achieve, or at least not jeopardise, wider social aims such as fairness and uniform provision?
I turn in conclusion to a couple of ideas currently being developed for widening the ambit of public/ private partnership. The first is the concept of public value. This is an attempt to allow for the increased value of government activities beyond the material benefits people receive from paying taxes; in other words, to allow for immeasurables. It is very hard to build immeasurables into cost/benefit analysis, but they are there. Government activity adds value. It can also subtract from value. So how do we get a grip on this in the context of public/private partnerships?
The other PPP development that seems to have a future is co-payment. We have already experienced this in top-up fees for university students but it will probably become more general. In a co-payment system, the purchaser/provider split remains, but the purchasers are divided between the Government and private consumers. Arthur Seldon has recently advocated the extension of that principle to state education.
The suggestion that the state and the private sector working together can create more aggregate value than the sum of the values of their separate parts is, as I have tried to indicate, both attractive and troublesome. The question remains whether PPP is a genuine innovation in our political economy or an unstable halfway house between further steps towards privatisation or the renationalisation of public services. It is certainly food for thought. I beg to move for Papers.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, on behalf of the House I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, very much for opening this debate with his fascinating tour d'horizon, which was both philosophical and practical. Following his grand synthesis, I shall move from the general to the particular. In so doing, I declare an interest both as an economist and as an investment manager with a particular interest in commercial property.
As the noble Lord said, PPP and PFI deals are all about risk—what risks are really transferred irrevocably from the public to the private sector, is the taxpayer paying a fair price for laying off those risks and is the process open enough for Parliament and public to get the straight answers they need to measure and judge these deals?
Today I want to explore one PPP deal in particular detail; that is, the outsourcing of the Inland Revenue's and Customs and Excise's property and facilities management to an offshore company called Mapeley Steps. In my view it shows how PPPs can increase, not reduce, risk for the taxpayer when they go wrong. It gives a salutary warning why these vast public spending commitments in PPPs and PFIs, often for up to 30 years ahead, must be open to proper public scrutiny.
I start—returning to the philosophical for a moment—by stating firmly for the record that we on these Benches hold no ideological torch either for or against PPPs. We believe that free trade and free markets work much better than protectionism and regulation. We want public services to be delivered as efficiently and as reliably as possible, giving the highest quality at the lowest cost. Big, bureaucratic public organisations can be sadly lacking in project management or specialist technical skills; too often in the past the rule has been, the bigger the public construction project, the longer the delay and the bigger the cost overrun.
But to get better bakers baking better bread you do not always have to give them the bakery for the next 20 or 30 years. Just as the public sector often lacks the skills to manage big projects, it also lacks the equally scarce skills needed to manage a PPP or PH bidding process professionally and to drive the hardest bargain possible with the bidders in a truly competitive, not a cosy, tender. Too often, in early PFI contracts in particular, private contractors have taken the taxpayer to the cleaners, setting up thinly capitalised single
1250
purpose vehicles leaving most of the risk in practice in the public sector, with enormous windfall profits if interest rates move the right way and non-existent, or minimal, clawback or profit sharing arrangements. Too often the deals have been set up so that it was heads the PFI contractor wins, tails the taxpayer loses.
Too often in one or two cases such as Mapeley, I am afraid to say, a cover-up has also followed the initial cock-up. That example is not some remote school or hospital trust; it is right at the centre of government. In the Mapeley Steps PFI, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise sold off 600 properties to offshore shelf companies registered in a tax haven and controlled by foreign investors. There has been much interest in the tax side of things, stamp duty and so on, but that is not what I am focusing on today. I am focusing on the risk and what risk was or was not transferred. In March 2001, the Revenue and Customs and Excise signed a 20-year PFI contract with Mapeley. By December, Mapeley said that it had a serious cash flow problem and asked for an extra settlement to bail it out. The departments were then concerned that the contract, on which the ink was barely dry, could collapse, with very substantial additional costs if they had to take the properties back. Civil servants then issued letters of comfort to the PFI contractor to enable it to refinance without, as it happens, telling Ministers.
Complex negotiations of that sort can all too easily create a climate of collusion between the public purchaser and the private supplier when things go wrong. No wonder the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons concluded, in its report last year, that in this case the financial crisis at the contractor and the potential consequences of the company going bust undermined the long-stated objective of transferring risk to the private sector.
What happened in the case—it is a classic property market operation—is that Mapeley took out the valuable freehold properties, put them in one company and transferred it to Bermuda, and left the long-term facilities management contract and the short leasehold properties, many of which were liabilities, in a company called Mapeley Steps Contractors, the rump company with the PFI contract. In plain English, the Inland Revenue let the man behind Mapeley, a gentleman called George Soros, get the British taxpayer over a barrel.
That is a pretty salutary example of how things can go wrong. I am also concerned about the more recent deal to extend the outsourcing contract for the DWP for jobcentres with Trillium. That is not because we are not talking about a substantial British company that has loan securities, but because I saw very little sign of a competitive tender when the contract was extended or of the competitive tension about which the PAC has talked. To me, it looked rather cosy, and it did not seem that the procurers had properly priced the two quite separate aspects of the contract, one of which was the sale of a lot of freehold property. With a lease of 10 or 15 years to the Government, that property is in very considerable demand and has a very high value

1251
at the moment. The separate issue was the facilities management contract. That was not properly analysed.
I have also raised similar concerns in the House in the past about the highly stretched finances of the likes of Amey and Jarvis, which were bidding for London Underground. Those were brushed off at the time by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Since then, Amey has had to be rescued by a very low takeover hid when it was on the edge of bankruptcy, and most of its PPP interests have been sold off in the secondary market. That process flew very much in the face of Recommendation 12 from the latest report of the Public Accounts Committee, which suggested that:
"Before shortlisting potential bidders departments must be satisfied as to their financial and technical competence and their performance on other government projects".
It is obviously important that a PPP be a long-term relationship, and again, in such cases, there is now an active secondary market in PPP interests. Whatever is said at the beginning, people find out a year or two on that they are dealing with a very different supplier of the services.
PPPs can and do work well in areas where bidding systems are well established; where procurers have played themselves in, if I can put it that way; particularly where a new building is a key part of the service to be delivered; and where there is a culture of openness and transparency about the process. The best example is in the NHS, as the recent IPPR report made clear. In other areas, such as local authorities and schools, that report said that much was shrouded in secrecy.
We on these Benches take a highly pragmatic approach to PPPs. They can be useful to bring in private sector discipline, and to tie private contractors and to fix price contracts without overruns. However, the risks are enormous and, in many cases, the public sector is incapable of assessing them properly. We see the benefits of new PPP investments today, but we will know the real costs only in a decade's time.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords,—I, too, want to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for initiating the debate in his usual stimulating manner, and to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, for bringing a particular viewpoint from his own experience for us to consider. Similarly, the debate gives me an opportunity to bring to the House some direct personal experiences of one PPP, NATS Ltd. I have been a non-executive director of NATS since it was formed in July 2001, so I declare an interest. Also, I want to share with noble Lords a number of conclusions that I and others who have looked at the PPP have drawn, and to raise a few questions.
When the PPP was launched—not without some opposition and controversy—Her Majesty's Government retained a 49 per cent stake. The Airline Group was the preferred strategic partner, selected on the basis of a not-for-commercial return, its key return
1252
being that it hoped for increasing efficiency and a more cost-effective operation. It gained a 46 per cent stake initially, and the remaining 5 per cent of the shares went to NATS employees. Those are currently non-tradable and not on the market. A good question for the Minister therefore might be whether the Government intend to leave the shares in that position ad infinitum, or whether there might not be some ideas about floating them.
The immediate principal beneficiary at the launch of the PPP, gaining more than £700 million in receipts, was the Exchequer. In spite of press reports and allegations of government hail-outs since—NATS ran fairly quickly into some financial difficulties—there has actually been relatively little support from the Government. We have taken a loan of £30 million, repayable at commercial interest rates. Subsequently, there has been an additional financial injection of £65 million, conditional on our matching that figure from the private sector. In the event, that match came from BAA, which now has a 4 per cent stake, thereby reducing the Airline Group's interest to 42 per cent.
The Exchequer has still done pretty well out of the exercise, and has retained well over £600 million from it. We now none the less have, as I will seek to demonstrate, an improved public service beyond what we could have expected if NATS' status had not changed into a PPP. However, NATS has had its problems, as I would not deny. Within six weeks of its formation, we were faced with the consequences of September 11 in the USA, when there was an unprecedented decline in air traffic. That was particularly damaging from NATS' point of view, as the major portion of our income comes from north transatlantic flights—it is our major income earner.
The Airline Group had also borrowed extensively from the banks to fund its stake purchase in NAT'S, and to provide the long-term capital expenditure programme that it was required to deliver—around £1 billion through to 2010–11. Its own airline businesses were, however, badly hit by the loss of air traffic following September 11. The first lesson to be drawn in my opinion is therefore that PPPs—fragile plants that some of them may be—should not be over-geared with debt. That picks up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. Put another way, if we are dealing directly with the Treasury, the Treasury similarly should not be greedy.
The second lesson is that PPPs must make certain that, in modelling their financial structure, they have been tested against the worst possible scenarios. The NATS PPP had been modelled against 19 adverse scenarios, including the Gulf War of the early 1990s. However, none had the severity of the consequences that we faced after September 11. Thirdly, it is worth pondering whether strategic partners should come solely from the industry within which the PPP will operate. Certainly one gains great industry know-how and insight from that, but might not there be a case for greater diversification and spreading the risk wider than has been the case with the NATS PPP?

1253
The Government's objectives for the NATS PPP were, principally: to enhance UK aviation safety by separating service provision from regulation; to provide NATS with greater project management and commercial expertise than it had had hitherto—it had long records of embarking on major projects and of major misses on timetabling and costs; to ensure access to adequate capital without recourse to public sector borrowing; and to move to incentive and performance-based regulation to replace the former "cost-plus" regime, which had operated for many years and led to allegations that the UK air traffic service charged the highest prices in Europe.
In particular, we needed more investment to meet projected traffic growth, leaving September 11 aside. Without September 11, the anticipation was of unfettered growth of a minimum order of 5 per cent per annum running through as far as we could see. Most European air traffic service providers and their USA counterparts have difficulties with investments similar to ours. Programmes are cut when there are budgeting problems in the public service. That has bedevilled all air traffic service providers. Prior to PPP, that had always been the case in the UK.
However, soon with privatisation we had similar problems to those that we had experienced in the past under public service. Therefore, we had to embark on a politically sensitive, complicated and lengthy financial restructuring. I can report to the House that the PPC—I will not make promises but I will read the phrase—is now "financially robust and independent" following the composite solution change and bond refinancing exercise that was undertaken last year.
The composite solution, as I mentioned earlier, involved the entry of BAA as a 4 per cent shareholder and the recasting of the CAA regulatory cost regime. Under the public service ownership practice, it was RPI-plus. After the PPP, we embarked upon an RPI minus 4 per cent regime to cut charges. That was a most ambitious programme, but it was not sustainable with the September 11 traffic downturn. Happily, the CAA regulator was prepared to make adjustments to RPI minus 2 per cent.
The consequence has been that in the past three years NATS has been the only provider to reduce prices. All our comparitors in the rest of Europe have increased theirs. That is quite a measure of progress in the light of our previous history.
What other progress has been made? Safety has remained paramount, although it was regrettable that there was an incident at Manchester airport two weeks ago. It is currently being investigated, but NATS has introduced more stringent safety measures than have existed hitherto. During the past two years, despite the growth in the density of low frills air traffic, we have seen a reduction in recorded incidents.
Significant improvements have been made in delay performance. The average delay per flight attributed to NATS was 0.7 minutes in 2003, to be viewed against a performance in 2002 of 2.6 minutes and an internal target for 2003 of 1.5 minutes. We have almost halved
1254
the target we set ourselves, which is an amazing performance. There has been an increase in the overall number of flights at 3.9 per cent. We are handling more flights with less money coming in because fewer have been on the north Atlantic run.
There has been a reduction in planned spending of £200 million as part of the regulatory regime approach. That would never have occurred under the previous public sector arrangements. Furthermore, as we have settled the bonding issue, that has triggered the release of the almost £1 billion investment plan I mentioned that will run to 2012. That will entail the complete replacement of the old legacy systems and a reorganisation into two main centres—one at Swanwick and one in Scotland—with the introduction of additional emergency standby facilities. It is difficult to contemplate that under the public service we could have had a programme running from 2004 to 2012 without interference in one form or another with the flow of funds.
The PPP has a new strategic mindset. much of which would never have been possible previously. In particular, it is developing a collaborative programme with Spanish and German counterparts and it is seeking a leading role in the development of the European single sky policy. Many in Europe and in the States are watching our unique model. Much work still remains to be done—culture changes do not come overnight. We need to develop greater staff involvement and commitment to the concept. I would like to see the 5 per cent staff stake in shares increased. Will the Government maintain their 49 per cent stake, or do they have ideas about changing that? It can go down to 25 per cent. Would they contemplate looking for means whereby staff involvement and commitment could be further increased by finding methods of transferring shares to them?
There are other intriguing questions about lines of accountability, which have already been touched on, and shareholders' responsibility. Who really bears most risk? Should NATS be quite so heavily regulated by the CAA or could there be a lighter touch? I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, about the growth of regulation. The UK airlines were given greater opportunities for self-regulation with limited CAA interference. Why should that not apply to the National Air Traffic Services?
After a rocky start, this is one PPP that is now working well. It is well funded with a good, sound long-term investment plan and it is a model perhaps for others to follow. My view is that each PPP must look at its own entity and decisions must be taken by government and their partners in the light of circumstances in which they find themselves. They should be customised to meet those circumstances. Overall, this PPP has worked well and is working well. It is increasing the provision of better public service, which in my opinion would have been the case had it continued down the same old route.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am doubly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, first, for introducing the debate and, secondly, for in an all-too-brief 16-minute speech giving me the exact essay for which I have looked for a long time to explain what we are talking about today.
I suffer from several disadvantages. I have spent most of my life in the financial sector, rather like the mosquito with one foot on the land and one in the muddy water of public finance, experiencing the tide going in and out, bogs and difficult problems on the way. I started in the days of BOT—build, operate and transfer—the Bosporus Bridge. Other buildings and activities came about, often with aid funds. There was then BOOT and DCFO—design, construct, finance and operate. Everyone seemed to invent a new word or phrase and no one could explain to me what it was all about.
We knew Her Majesty's Government—and I hope that "Her Majesty" will always remain in front of it—will always have to obtain the best deal. But the problem with the public sector is that, in general, it has a different culture from the private sector. That was often demonstrated when senior officials from the public sector went into executive jobs in industry to watch their industrial company rapidly decline. That culture needs bridging and some of the concepts advanced and the learning curves are significant.
I declare an interest. I am a senior non-executive director of Gleesons and we undertake many PFI and PPP projects. I spent part of this morning with my colleagues, including my chairman who is chairman of the major contractor's group, discussing what had gone right, what had gone wrong, what the Government should do, and what we and others should do.
While we may talk about PPP being risk-sharing or a partnership, in reality PPP is the Government's attempt to transfer the risk completely. That is a misrepresentation of the truth, whereas PEI is more of a risk-sharing exercise. The term "alliance" is beginning to be advanced. I have spent recent weeks on the continent of Europe discussing with local authorities in Germany and elsewhere how the British example could be used to develop and manage public investment in the social sector. Then I thought to myself, "Wait a moment! The Government, and much to my surprise a Labour Government, have almost adopted what might originally have been Conservative or Liberal clothes".
The Government have a problem because they have promised the electorate that so much must be built and operated within a narrow time-frame. Here, I do not believe that there is any difference between the political parties but questions do arise in relation to the mechanism. What can we learn about it? As has already been indicated, PFI seems a more effective way of dealing with the issue, but we must understand that contracting is a risk business and does not usually involve capital; it involves working capital and working with one's client's money. In general, contractors cannot take big equity risks unless they have an equity group behind them.
1256
I turn to the different areas that we are discussing: schools, hospitals, roads, railways, prisons and secure centres, where PFI runs right across the board I shall begin with the hospital sector and the mechanisms that have been advanced successfully under what is known as "Procure 21". The Government seem to have different ways of procuring everything. I have been asked to suggest that, even from these Benches, and high though I may be at the moment, it would be far better to have greater centralism. The PS.4, the Ministry of Building and Public Works and—dare I say it?—the Duchy of Cornwall and the Crown Estate have had years of procurement experience. They knew every trick in the book. You knew that it would be a long, uphill battle when negotiating with them but, when you had signed your agreement, they were as strong an ally as you could wish to have and, perhaps to a certain extent, a little more of an ally than is the case today.
Turning to the subject of the hospital programme, the Government decide on the kind of hospital that they want and they hand it over to a trust. In general, the members of the trust do not have much experience of government or of the private sector. Obviously, they disclose their interests and express their own views and they can disrupt the progress of the construction contract quite considerably and cause delays. In addition—I have raised this matter with your Lordships before—many of them fail to realise that technically the trustees are shadow or non-executive directors. In this compensation world, one wonders whether they are aware of the liabilities that they might have if the hospital concerned failed or burnt out someone's eyes, with the ensuing claim that would run through the system. Such uncertainties are difficult to fathom.
The group with which I am connected has built many hospitals. I shall not disclose which ones have lost money, but the experience and the learning curve have been significant. The mechanism is good. However, there have been problems when dealing with UNISON, and perhaps the greatest problem has been the long-standing lack of investment in the health sector. There are also fears relating to issues such as MRSA and the infrastructure behind the hospital.
I move on to the subject of schools and the Building Schools for the Future programme—to some extent, another method of procurement. That has worked, too. Schools have been built quite successfully and quickly but little thought has been given to how useful the infrastructure could be during the school holidays. In some parts of the country, it could be used for temporary homes, for students visiting the country or for tourists. The point is that the infrastructure—the buildings themselves—is not necessarily used throughout a full year.
Moving down the line, we come to the subject of prisons. My group has built two or three detention centres and a high-security prison as PFI projects. Much to my amazement, the cost of building an individual cell was significant but the cost of the security for such a cell was roughly £40,000 per prisoner. In that sector, the five or six security

1257
companies—several have already been mentioned—are effectively the client and the Government are completely out of the picture. On the other hand, when building schools, one often has to deal with local authorities and governors, who may sometimes wish to disrupt the very objectives that the Government set at the beginning. Therefore, PFI seems to be effective and to work, but the long term has not been thought through.
We move to the phrase "partnering". Partnering is not really PFI or PPP. It tends to occur where a former public utility—a water or power company, which, regrettably, nowadays are often owned by foreign interests such as the French and Germans—sits down together with a contractor and a design company and designs, builds and operates a treatment plant or something of that kind. That works fairly well. However, ultimately, people have yet to work out the value of their long-term investment. A 15 or 20-year investment, particularly for a contractor who must achieve a high turnover on his capital, is long term. The Treasury is about to produce a new paper on the subject of PFI.
In many countries, that type of investment is considered by pension funds to be long term because it is secure and reliable once it is off the ground. If only we could raise the yields on those projects to somewhere around 6 per cent, I am sure that pension funds in this country and the world over would invest in them because they like the security of the public sector having been involved at some time or another.
I come to another technical issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, pointed out, ultimately it all comes down to money. Contractors want to have a good contract and they want to be proud of the results. As an example, my group is building a court somewhere. We were building it for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—a very eminent man in a high position—and we thought we had a prime job. Now we are building it for the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs—rather lower down in the batting order. Today, I was asked whether the covenant was just as good, but I am happy to know that the building will open on time and I shall write to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to ask whether he will open it.
The fear of those in the private sector does not necessarily relate to understanding the Government. Those concerned may be the bankers but certainly not the contractors, who are closely involved in the negotiations. Gradually, as one negotiates on one school and then another, the learning curve becomes shallower and people begin to get to know and to trust each other.
My experience of dealing with the public sector—mainly the long-standing bodies that I mentioned earlier—has always been that they do their job very professionally. However, they have to extract not the last pound of flesh but a deal which they hope will involve no risk in terms of cost overruns and so on. But, ultimately, the sharing must be looked at more closely and technical issues can arise.
1258
I shall refer to a body called the Urgent Issues Task Force, which my noble friend on the Front Bench will know about. You may be selected as a preferred bidder and will hope to sign a contract. If the Government or the public sector suddenly change their mind, which they are entitled to do, and decide that, instead of going through a PFI project, they will go down the normal, traditional route, you will have to write off, or may be reimbursed for, substantial costs which are incurred between the time you are selected as a preferred bidder and the time the contract is signed. Under current accountancy regulations, you cannot capitalise those costs and therefore you have a major problem. There may even be a balance sheet problem, which affects medium and small-sized contractors. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider that and other issues which I may introduce later privately.
There is a genuine willingness throughout the construction and contracting industries to work in this sector. In general, our group finds that perhaps three-quarters of our business now comes under the heading of "partnering". One likes it because, in general, the risks are fewer and the margins are lower. People who assume that contractors make enormous margins must understand that there are such things as ground conditions and other issues that can cause absolute havoc, let alone the weather.
I am proud to have been involved in this sector. I believe that it is going in the right direction. Much tinkering could be done but, again, although I am a Conservative, I say that if the Government would look a little more at centralism, I believe that that would go down very well. Can they also please bring back the original Ministry of Building and Public Works, which I always saluted when I passed it in the street?
4.8 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, it is already evident that we have reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for having initiated a debate which is clearly informative and stimulating. I want to offer a few observations which come some way between the philosophical remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and the very practical comments of my noble friend Lord Oakeshott and the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Selsdon.
I start with the presumption that the notion of a partnership between public agencies and private finance and companies which provide services is attractive. I do not say that because I am a Hegelian; I am emphatically not that. If anything, I am a Kantian who likes clear and clean distinctions rather than fuzzy synthesis.
Having said that, I find the notion attractive that one might combine public interest with efficiency. In any case, the world in which we live is one in which in many cases it has become difficult to distinguish between public and private. My distinguished successor but four as Director of the London School of Economics, Howard Davies, was recently reported to say that we even lack a rigorous taxonomy of the new menagerie of public/private sector life, and I am sure he is right.

1259
It is also the case that successive Chancellors have been rather enthusiastic about public/private partnerships—the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, introduced the PFI part of that category in 1992; his successor, Kenneth Clarke, took it up and Mr Gordon Brown is a considerable enthusiast for this idea of partnership—or is there perhaps something very slightly suspicious about the enthusiasm of Chancellors for this particular invention in our political world?
I should like to raise a few questions in that regard, to which there may well be satisfactory answers. Indeed, I do not expect all the answers from the Minister today. In a sense I regret our ritual that the initiator of a debate such as this moves for Papers and then withdraws the Motion at the end of the day. I should like to see papers which answer the questions I want to put before the House.
My first question is the familiar and simple one to which the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, alluded. Is there not a built-in conflict of interest between the values of public service on the one hand and the values of private profit on the other? To put that even more acutely and sharply, does not the extensive use of public/private partnership destroy some of the service values which are part and parcel of a good system of public services? That is not a theoretical question. There may be a satisfactory answer to which the noble Lord, Lord Skideisky, alluded. It may be the good old answer that there should be a narrow definition of truly public services, which should be "public/public", and a definition which leaves a wide space for private interest and private action but emphasises public services.
I liked the reference that was made to another kind of partnership; that is, the partnership between the public sector or the public interest and the voluntary sector or the philanthropic interest. In some ways, the values of public service and the values of a voluntary sector are closer to each other than those of the public and the private sector. I repeat, I am raising questions to which there may well be a satisfactory answer.
My second question is: can one distinguish between areas of public services in which private finance is useful and others in which it is not or perhaps less so? I used to feel that the distinction could be made between infrastructure and operation, between track and trains. But what I used to feel is evidently irrelevant today because my sense was that there are aspects of the infrastructure of our society which are distinctly public/public and should be public responsibility, whereas operation might be private. What is happening now is almost the opposite. Certainly that is true in the case of PFI. Hospitals are built by private initiatives but run by the NHS. By analogy, the same is true for schools. The question is whether there are other dividing lines.
I was interested in Research Paper 03/79 submitted to the House of Commons on the private finance initiative which states, for example:
"While road and prison projects have achieved reasonable efficiency gains. projects in other sectors such as schools and hospitals have shown minimal gains".
1260
The reason given in this research report for this particular difference is that in the former case there is no clear division between core and ancillary services whereas in the latter cases there is such a distinction.
If I am not mistaken, the Government distinguish between projects with a small and a large capital value and regard only the latter as useful candidates for private finance initiative activity. Certainly, there seems to be a relevant question as to whether this distinction or any distinction of this kind can be usefully applied to policy decision.
My third question is almost by the way, but nevertheless I hope will not be regarded as irrelevant. Is it not critically important for effective public services that the possibility of cross-subsidies remains open? There may well be a risk in some cases that private sector interests enter above all where activities are profitable. Railways are an example which have not yet been discussed in any depth. Transport, at any rate, accounts for 60 per cent of all PFIs. So, in some ways transport should be one of our main themes.
Long-distance rail lines may be profitable; commuter travel is not. Is it not more appropriate to have a system in which it is possible to cross-subsidise rather than to privatise one and leave the taxpayer with the other? Indeed, there is a deeper question: should there be profit in public services?
I now come to two or perhaps three questions which take me back to the interests of Chancellors in PPPs and notably PFIs. My fourth question is: Is the private element in PFIs and PPPs additional to public expenditure otherwise decided or is it a substitute for such public expenditure? It is one of those questions which can never be properly answered. It reminds one of the vexing question often asked about European structural funds and what they are used for. Clearly, money that would often not be available now if it had to come from the public purse is sometimes found from private sources, so there must be an assumption that to some extent private finance is a substitute for cash-strapped public funding.
If that is possible—-if private money can do the trick—what magic makes it possible? What is so special about the private element? Is it to be understood that taxpayers' money cannot afford what is necessary but also need not do so because private sources are happy to come in?
That leads me to my fifth question, which in some ways is the most difficult. Is the entire PPP/PFI system in some ways a method of saving current expenditure by imposing future burdens and by the same token investment for current expenditure? In other words, is the whole PPP show a game with mirrors?
The case is stated concisely and unambiguously in the summary of the House of Commons research paper to which I referred, one paragraph of which is worth quoting in full:
"The PFI has meant that more capital projects have been undertaken for a given level of public expenditure and public service capital projects have been brought on stream earlier. As at 4 April 2003 there had been almost 570 PFI deals signed with a total capital value of almost £36 billion. The increased level of activity must be paid for by higher public expenditure in the

1261
future, as the stream of payments to the private sector grows. PFI projects signed to date have committed the Government to a stream of revenue payments to private sector contractors between 2003/04 and 2028/29 of over £110 billion"—
as against the current value of £36 billion.
These "future liabilities" do not show up in current accounts—and, incidentally, they do not include unexpected burdens on the public purse which may arise when private contractors fail for one reason or another.
That leaves my sixth and final question, which of course is on the question of accountability. Is accountability for this new instrument of public policy sufficient or is there—as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, put it—a "blurring of accountability"? All this is not said to make a case against public private partnerships, but in the hope that we will gain an even clearer understanding of what we are doing and why we are doing it—and perhaps to get an understanding which helps us to evolve an instrument that might well turn out to be more useful than harmful.
4.21 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I join in thanking my noble friend Lord Skidelsky for introducing this extremely topical debate. I do not profess to have any personal expertise on the subject, but I am firmly of the belief that PPPs do indeed play—and have played—a very important role in improving the performance of the public sector, particularly in the build out of healthcare, school and university facilities. Sceptics of PPPs and PFIs will naturally refer to the London Underground, which so far has not delivered the improvements in reliability and service that were originally anticipated.
However, rather than speak on the woes of the London Underground and the negative features of PPPs, I wish to confine my remarks to the many hundreds of smaller PFIs which have been very successful in both delivery on budget and on time. In essence, what we all want are high-quality public services, which are built on time and within budget, and where the risk does not fall on the taxpayer but more on the private contractor. The four key elements to the success of PFI—I refer more to PFI than to PPPs—are the design, the build, the finance and the operational skill sets.
It is easy to get bogged down with the academic issues of the control relationship between public and private sector, more specifically on whose balance sheet the asset of' the property part of the services should be situated. I shall not elaborate on this point, but my central theme is that public sector infrastructure projects invariably tend to go over budget and over time. In essence what is needed is a combination of the best of the public sector and the best of the private sector. All too often major infrastructure projects fail because of poor management. Here no doubt the private sector invariably tends to have a far more disciplined and financially focused management style. I do not in any way undermine the management style of the public
1262
sector, but certainly on cost I believe that the private sector is in a far better position to take control of these issues.
As my noble friend Lord Skidelsky very eloquently outlined in his précis of the past, present and future of PPPs, the public sector looks to the private sector for expertise, innovation and management of appropriate risks, so as to improve productivity. So far there have not been many cost savings, but there is scope for far better cost savings. The private sector is invariably better positioned to raise competitive funding in the capital markets.
There are a number of PPP projects, which clearly will have huge benefits for the public sector. I refer to Project Aquatrine, which effectively will transfer the responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the Ministry of Defence's water and wastewater assets and infrastructure to private sector providers. By transferring this environmental risk to the private sector, which certainly is far better positioned to manage it, the MoD will be able to exit a non-core activity and concentrate its efforts on delivering military capability.
PPP will also play a very important role in the build out of future modern schools, utilising higher standards of design and innovation and more importantly delivering these facilities on time and on budget.
Britain has played an important role as a role model for the promotion of PPPs, which have been promoted in many countries around the world. I am not of the opinion that PPPs will be the panacea for the budget constraints of many countries. I refer specifically to the new European Union member states like Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. All have a major need to invest in infrastructure and social services to catch up with western Europe. But it is difficult to combine PPP projects with EU structural funds because PPPs obviously cover a longer period than the structural funds are designed for and because interest payments are not eligible for EU funding.
The National Audit Office has made a number of very constructive recommendations on PPPs. In its recent report the NAO made a strong point that public and private sector partners should not enter into a customer/supplier relationship but need to take—in its words—a whole business approach with proper checks and balances showing more transparency and accountability.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, that PPPs carry a fair amount of risk. Clearly there is a lot of scope for improvement of PPPs. The tender process—a point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky—is very bureaucratic and costly. There is scope for driving down costs in that one area and scope also for greater efficiencies. I welcome the recent move by the Department of Health to batch PPP projects by grouping several PPPs and then putting them out for joint tender. We certainly should expedite and streamline the whole process. However, I remain sceptical on the success of "lifts". I shall not go into the issue of the definition of lifts.

1263
I should like to see a far more entrepreneurial approach to PPPs. The private sector is best positioned to inject entrepreneurship into private sector projects, which are often very monolithic. I refer to some experience I had in the past when I worked for a large oil company. We used to build service stations and provide service stations as a convenience centre. I certainly believe that in the hospitals for the future there is far more scope for value-add services in the build out of these much needed facilities.
With the public sector currently accounting for just over 40 per cent of UK GDP, I conclude, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, that there is no doubt that PPPs have played, and will continue to play, an important role in improving the performance of the public sector. The system is far from being perfect. There are risks. But the upside, once several of the impediments that your Lordships have already mentioned have been removed, is a win-win for both the public and the private sector.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on moving this very topical Motion. Purely as an aside, perhaps I may say that somehow I find his arguments much more persuasive since he moved to the Cross-Benches.
However, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord that the private finance initiative is part of the Third Way. The private finance initiative arose out of need. It has been around a long time; rather longer than the Third Way. In the private sector 15 or 20 years ago creative accounting was very much in fashion. At the same time, the public sector was starved of investment—cash-strapped, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, put it. The creative accountants argued that if the investment was contracted to the private sector, it need not be limited by the PSBR, which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, mentioned. The rate of investment could be speeded up.
At that time, the public sector used the knowledge and experience of the private sector, but when a project was completed the private sector then walked away. To retain the private sector's management skills and involvement, long-term contracts of 20 or 30 years would be needed to bind it into the contract. If, in addition, the private sector could be persuaded to accept some of the risk, the entrepreneurial drive of the private sector, about which the noble Lord, Lord St John, spoke so eloquently, combined with the public service ethos of the public sector, would give us better opportunities of raising the level and quality of public infrastructure.
That is the theory out of which the private finance initiative was born. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that it is too early to say whether it works in practice. I do not think that any project has gone its full term. I have no objection to it in principle, as it must be right to use all our resources to provide the public with the most cost-effective infrastructure, and that must assist in the performance of the public sector. Neither do I think that it is privatisation by
1264
another name, so long as it is made clear that the project's first priority is the public sector. Where the project is clear and the risks are clearly defined, especially when things go wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, pointed out, PH projects can work, particularly where they relate to new construction of schools, hospitals, regenerating urban houses, bridges and flood defences. There is a powerful incentive for all sides to work together and to understand clearly what each is expected to do and what each will be paid for. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, that many more projects can be started because they do not rely entirely on public money, and the public benefits.
Problems arise where those deals go beyond the provision of infrastructure and move into the provision of services as opposed to infrastructure. They arise because it becomes more difficult to reconcile the need of the private sector to create shareholder value with the state's need to put the public first. The private sector operates in a market; the state must look after the public interest. I join the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in asking whether there can be a partnership between the two. Can the invisible hand of the market also be a helping hand to the public? It probably can. I agree with other noble Lords that a lot of thought must be given to the way in which such partnerships are set up and managed.
There was a time when Labour believed that public service required public ownership. That was because people thought that a market economy prospered only at the expense of a fair society. It was John Smith who persuaded us that a market economy and a fair society were not in conflict. They went together; they were the same side of the coin. Since then, a lot of thought has gone into the role and limits of the state and markets in providing the public interest. A year ago my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a truly seminal speech to the Social Market Foundation, laid out the relationship, as he saw it, between individuals, markets and the state in meeting the interests of the public.
That relationship is absolutely crucial and central to the way in which public services will be delivered. Services such as healthcare, education and the funding and management of universities are very much influenced by it. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorl, mentioned transport. I agree with him that it should be included. That is why it is no accident that the kind of public and private partnerships that work best are current areas of intense political controversy and great public concern. Some noble Lords may have been present at the current series of seminars on that question, run by the Smith Institute—the one named after John Smith, not Adam Smith. I declare an interest as chair of the trustees.
It seems that public/private partnerships will work only where the role of the market is fully understood and acknowledged. That is because the role of the market will define where to draw the line between the public and the private interests in those partnerships. I think that the Minister will agree with me—and I pray in aid the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chief Rabbi—that where the

1265
market plays a role in human relationships, we all find it unacceptable. It is unacceptable because there is imperfect information; the market ignores morality; and the outcome is uncertain and can be catastrophic. That applies in human services such as health, and it is why I think that public/private partnerships have no role to play in the delivery of medical services but certainly have a role to play in providing the infrastructure.
On the other hand, the private sector can provide human services such as professional and skills training. Even though it is a public service, there is an element of competition in the delivery, so markets can do their work. The outcomes can be measured and judged so that the public can assess that it is getting what it needs and at what cost.
In between these two extremes market control mechanisms must be built. Other noble Lords have mentioned regulation. Regulators decide whether the public is paying a fair price for gas, water or electricity, because it would be wasteful to have real competition—one cannot simply duplicate the wires and pipes. But, in practice, there are problems: as the operators know much more about the business, regulators become their captives, and they are dependent on the operators for information. If there are accidents or failures, the regulator is often blamed by the public, even though he or she can do nothing about it. It is not easy; lack of competition denies the regulator the opportunity of market testing.
Companies themselves can do more to make such partnerships work. Businesses active in delivering public services can build in their own controls and make public service part of their ethos. They can do that by accepting obligations in their corporate governance and corporate responsibility culture that go beyond normal trading and exchange. So one has firms such as the British Airports Authority, a quoted company, which is responsible on the one hand for delivering a commercial service to airlines and on the other for delivering a service to the public. Companies such as BAA virtually regulate themselves. They decide on the boundary between the market and public service. To me, that is the kind of public/private partnership that works well.
Additional business risks are associated with the management of those public service issues—social and ethical risks. Investors and investment fund managers are becoming increasingly interested in that. In response, companies are starting to report on those issues in the same manner in which they report on the assessment of financial and trading risks. The Company Law Review is looking at the issue. Perhaps the Minister can say whether the Government propose to make that kind of reporting mandatory.
In spite of all that, some have suggested that it is too difficult to combine the public and private interest in traditional companies, and that a new kind of hybrid company needs to be invented. So-called social enterprises are appearing. They are a kind of public/private enterprise. They compete in the marketplace and are there to make a profit, but their purposes are
1266
social and include regenerating inner-city neighbourhoods or combating rural decline by bringing in jobs and investment. Another good example is Social Firms UK, which helps create businesses that give disabled people a route into normal employment. Perhaps because they are owned by their employees, users or clients, by the local community or even by charities, it is easier for them to be managed with their social objectives in mind. Another great advantage is that they are small and local. They too are public/private partnerships that appear to work.
With careful thought about the role of the market, public/private partnerships can combine the dynamism of markets with the promotion of the public interest. There are several questions: which area of public interest is best served by the market—the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, asked that question—which aspects of public policy are best governed by free market forces of supply and demand; and how do the Government make sure that such partnerships are consistent with equality, fairness, opportunity and security? I hope that my noble friend the Minister can tell us.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, like many other noble Lords who have spoken, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Skidelsky for instigating the debate. Taking part in the debate, I feel pretty well out of my depth, because the issue on which I wish to question the Minister is something that provides no direct or discernible benefit to the public, creates no profits and requires huge, long-term financing. I refer, of course, to space and space projects. Such projects have been underfunded in this country because they do not have access to PPP or any of the other things. The parameters of risk management and the attitude to health and safety and to political expediency are completely different in the public and private sides of space projects.
Politicians are more inclined to react to rather than anticipate events because their events horizons are always bound by the date of the next election. Therefore, party managers from all political parties attempt to create public investment programmes that will have a time-frame of no more than four to five years. Anything outside those parameters is not usually government-financed, unless it is considered beneficial for re-election strategies. Space programmes, which, more often than not, span a decade, rather than the lifetime of a government, fall into that category. The European Space Agency's current Rosetta programme to intercept and analyse the structure of a comet is a case in point. It took 18 years to gestate and will take another 10 years to execute. Nevertheless, the results from it may have an extraordinary effect on all our thinking about how we look on our place in the universe of the past, present and future. In this thoughtful debate instigated by my noble friend, I want to ask how long-term space programmes will fit into the category of public/private

1267
funding. What role can the public and private sectors play in the development and encouragement of space science in the next 30 years or so?
Last week, I attended a most interesting seminar at the Royal Society, hosted by the lateral thinking Demos organisation. It was entitled "Masters of the Universe" and was about science, politics and the new space race to Mars by 2030 between NASA and the ESA, with possible late entries from China and Russia. Noble Lords will be aware that, on 14 January, President Bush threw down his space gauntlet to the world, when he proclaimed:
"today, we set a new course for America's space program. We will give NASA a new focus and vision for future exploration. We will build new ships to carry men forward into the universe, to gain a new foothold on the moon, and to prepare for new journeys to worlds beyond our own".
Those are stirring words. They are also expensive words for the American taxpayer and for the European taxpayer, if we take up the gauntlet.
President Bush went on to say:
"Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same reason we were once drawn into unknown lands and across the open sea … So let us continue the journey".
Those are striking words. I believe that we should take up the gauntlet in any way that we can. However, like a number of Peers who have been Members of this House and some who still are, I have ancestors who gave their life to exploring and developing the "unknown lands" of the Far East, in the interests of private trade. Navigational equipment at that time was basic, and their craft often proved frail against the elements that they encountered in the course of their journeys, but they persevered. They were not civil servants and were not publicly funded. They were usually employees of the East India Company.
The brave men and women astronauts of today are not much better equipped to face the harsh realities of outer space in ships that have proved on re-entry to be no more than insulated eggshells. The high cost of NASA's space vehicles for the future will be the result of trying to achieve 100 per cent success, without further loss of human life. That will be difficult, while there are severe payload restrictions due to having to launch from the terrestrial surface with chemical rockets. Safety must be a top priority wherever public funds are concerned or where national pride is at stake. Historically, the private sector has been prepared to take greater risks for monetary reward. There is no political fall-out when there is failure or loss of life in their endeavours. Therefore, it goes without saying that the private sector could stand a better chance of achievements in space at less cost than government-sponsored projects.
It is difficult to combine private and public finance. What will be the rules on something as fundamental as health and safety and something as fundamental—and dangerous—as travelling in space? What are the parameters for the new ships that the President of the United States will call on? Will they use nuclear power for propulsion and for power in space, to get off either the surface of the Earth or the surface of the Moon? Many people do not like the idea of nuclear power and
1268
do not want to put money into anything that has something nuclear in it. There will be problems if the Government do not wish to pursue the nuclear power programme, which is being run down here on Earth in this country. There are strong political views on the matter. How will finance he put together to create a safe rocket ship?
How can we address the issue in this country, which has a record of investment in space projects that is worse than Belgium's, in spite of the good fortune of having a qualified Minister for Science in charge? When Mr Kenneth Clarke was Minister for Space in a previous administration, he succinctly summed up his party's attitude to investment in the European Space Agency when he asked:
"Why should we pay to put a Frenchman on the Moon?".
That is a good question. Why should the British taxpayer do that? I ask—a letter in the Daily Telegraph asked the same thing—"Why should we put a Frenchman on the Moon? Why not put a British citizen on the Moon?".
In spite of all the good talk from the Government, there is no finance to do anything like that at the moment. The insular attitude of both major political parties is understandable in the light of the wide time-frames involved. However, it is not understandable in terms of British business opportunities or of firing the imagination of young people to take up the many different aspects of space science as school subjects. What is the point of taking up astrobiology, when we do not have anybody likely to go into space and are merely spectators? The exciting ESA Aurora project, involving robotic and human space flight, will take about 30 years to complete in two main parts. As I understand it, there is no direct British involvement so far, in spite of the fact that 30 other countries have signed up for it. Are we to remain as disinterested onlookers on what could be the most important European project of the century with huge potential benefits to British industry and education? I hope not. But the British National Space Council (BNSC) seems to think so. In its 69-page document entitled, UK Space Strategy 2003–2006 and beyond, its conclusions are clearly set out:
"Previous administrations decided not to maintain capabilities associated with launchers or human spaceflight. The Government will periodically assess areas of space development … taking account of affordability and competing claims for investment".
Those words are about as inspiring as a cost accountant's old balance sheet. Will young people take up science or anything connected with space sciences at school when they know that no money will be put into them? In future, they will not be engaged even as civil servants; currently, we have some of the best and most professional civil servants in space science. Where will young people divert their energies?
I have mentioned the Aurora project, on which a decision is to be made shortly. We have all heard of Beagle 2, the amazing work of Professor Pillinger and its sad failure. But it was not a failure: it was a highly technical device that was under-funded and manufactured under appalling time-restricted conditions. There is a possibility that a Beagle 3 could

1269
be developed and be part of the Aurora project. Who will finance that? Will it be the Government or the British taxpayer? Will private individuals finance it?
I ask that again because the Mail on Sunday published a list of 300 private individuals who are very rich indeed. I am not very good at arithmetic, but I added up the figures and those 300 people are worth about £150 billion. As has happened in the United States and elsewhere, would it not excite people who have made their money brilliantly through hard work and effort to put money into space projects? They have made enough money to make them comfortable here on Earth and might like to be involved in something as exciting as the new space projects. They should be encouraged to do so.
NASA has given up the search for extraterrestrial intelligence—the SETI programme. That has been taken up by a private and very rich individual from the Microsoft empire. There are others who have made their money and would spend millions to go on tours in space.
I shall go right back in time. As I said, I am quite out of depth on the economics of the debate. But, I dream that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren might be given an opportunity, such as the issuing of letters patent as happened in the old days, to explore the regions of space by private voyagers and private merchant venturers.
It has not been said before, but it has been said by another Lord who was a Member of this House. In his poem, Locksley Hall, Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote:
"For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;
Saw the heavens till with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales".
I hope that we can find either public or private finance to make those dreams a reality.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, merits our gratitude, as many noble Lords have remarked, for proposing this debate and for his exposition of the history and theory of the concept. It is a timely debate. The last and only parliamentary debate on the subject of PFI/PPP, as far as I can discover, was that initiated by the honourable Member for North West Leicestershire in another place on 17 July 2001.
Since then. of course, PPP schemes have expanded geometrically and it is appropriate that the record of performance should again be assessed. This short debate cannot be a substitute for the detailed analysis that is really needed; that would require a major scrutiny. But at least those of your Lordships who have participated in this debate have helped keep the issue alive, although I must confess that at times I thought it risked sounding like a revivalist meeting of the PFI faithful. As my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf indicated, the record of PFI/PPP has been very mixed.
1270
As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, observed, virtually all of the new developments in health, education, transport, the emergency services, government computerisation and defence have been financed through PPP schemes. That followed the edict of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In terms reminiscent of Mrs Thatcher, he proclaimed, "there was no alternative". Furthermore, Gordon Brown asserted that any criticisms or even considerations of other options were "ideological", as though his edict was not!
The vehemence with which Mr Bob Riley's proposal for using a bond issue to finance the refurbishment of London Transport—a far cheaper option than PPP—was strenuously resisted illustrates the degree to which PPP had become a dogma. Since Ken Livingstone has now been hastily installed as the official Labour candidate for Mayor of London, there have been welcome signs that the Treasury will allow bonds to be used to fund future London Underground projects. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, remarked, the Treasury has already approved the use of bonds to finance further NATS' developments, as we on these Benches urged at the outset when the NATS PPP was proposed, and that is welcome.
It is difficult to make a precise audit of the overall costs and benefits of PPP schemes since 1997. There have been some major failures, ranging from the Hull Gipsyville estate refurbishment to the Skye Bridge construction where only £500,000 was contributed by the contractors to the total cost of £25 million, and for this peppercorn rent they are likely to reap £88 million in profit.
The new hospitals in North Durham and Carlisle revealed major faults. Inevitably, poor examples attract publicity while successful ones are not reported, although we have had some rosy accounts today. In truth, there has been too large a catalogue of PPP disasters. It has proved a very costly learning curve and, to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, we are still learning.
In winding up the debate from these Benches, I shall concentrate on some of the broader questions that have been posed. First and foremost perhaps, is the taxpayer getting value for money, bearing in mind that PPPs are generally the most expensive option in cash terms? Do the Government have the capacity to conclude tightly negotiated deals? Thank goodness that in future the Government have decided not to finance any more IT projects through PPP schemes because they proved disastrous. What has been the record of Partnerships UK, the government lead agency in this area? Can the Minister say how the Government are seeking to improve the procurement capacity in these highly complex deals than has been the case so far?
My noble friend Lord Dahrendorf and other noble Lords mentioned the issue of openness and public accountability. These schemes take a long time to negotiate. The University College Hospital rebuild was a classic example of where the original plan had to be aborted and everything had to be started again. The

1271
bidding process was extremely costly. If the rumours are true, the rebuild of St Mary's Hospital, Paddington, will cost far above the original estimates. Indeed, already costs for preparing tenders appear to have spiralled out of control.
The chief executive of Kent County Council went on record last month. In an interview with the magazine, Public Private Finance, he made his disillusion clear about PFI/PPP:
"Our experience is that it takes far too long to negotiate, the economic benefits are doubtful and it ties the council up in long-term and inflexible obligations".
Similarly, as my noble friend Lord Oakeshott reported on the IPPR study by Labour's leading think-tank, PPP schemes are too often shrouded in secrecy. It is still common practice for an unacceptable amount of information to be withheld. Although the National Health Service seems to be better in this regard, it is clear that education authorities and local authorities have much further to go in this direction. "Commercial confidentiality" is too often employed as an excuse for cover up. There must be much more transparency in future tendering processes and contracts concluded.
Then, again, there is the question of how far PPP funds are to be publicly recorded. They are a form of off-balance-sheet accounting. Can the Minister say how much money has gone into PPP projects since 1997 to date, and how high is this sum expected to rise by, say, 2010? Future generations are now in hock to repay these debts and the room for manoeuvre on the part of future Chancellors will be very constrained. As my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf suggested, the crunch will come when public spending transfers from capital to current spending on a large scale. That point is not far off.
Can this level of funding, increasing as it is all the time, be sustained, and when will the ceiling be reached? How do the Government ensure that these 30-year contracts will be fully complied with over time? Already contractors have incurred penalties for non-compliance. Can the Minister tell us how many have been fined, and what is the total to date? PPPs have long since overtaken task forces as the main domestic emblem of this Government, but there has been no resolution of many of the issues that PPPs have raised.
Last year in the Financial Times, Mr James Strachan, chairman of the Audit Commission, sounded a general warning about the Government's approach towards public services. It was moving from,
"command and control and a battery of targets, to pouring billions of pounds of public assets and funds into highly nascent structures"—
not all of which, he implied, will prove fit for purpose. This applied to foundation hospitals, primary care trusts, the new regional housing boards, PPPs and RDAs. There was a real risk that,
"it is going to end in tears".
Of that list, PPPs are seen as among the most vulnerable and it remains an open question whether it was wise to go down the PPP route as extensively as has been the case.
1272
PPPs were meant to secure, among other claims, the advantages of the inculcation of private sector techniques into the renewal of public infrastructure. The record to date reveals a very chequered history.
5.3 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has given us the opportunity today to debate the role of public/private partnerships in public sector performance. This is an important and interesting topic in its own right, as the noble Lord's own speech and those of many other noble Lords amply demonstrated. My noble friend Lord Selsdon demonstrated many of the practical issues that arise from PPPs and PFIs, and I hope that I will not disappoint him if I do not try to deal with the Urgent Issues Task Force and its views on accounting for it. Instead I should like to shift my emphasis to the key issue of how the performance of the public sector links to the important issue of the delivery of public services.
In 1997 the Government were elected on the promise to deliver improved public services. Since that year we have had over 60 stealth taxes. On the Chancellor's calculations, the forecast tax burden is set to rise to over 38 per cent. On that basis, the public is entitled to look for improved public services, but the truth is that they have not improved commensurately with the money that has been put into them.
NHS spending has gone up by 37 per cent, but acute sector activity has increased by only 5 per cent. While waiting lists have reduced, the average experience of patients in terms of waiting times has deteriorated—the mean waiting time has increased from 43 days to 50 days just since 1999. And pretty well everybody except the Government thinks that NHS productivity has fallen.
In the public sector more widely we have seen a massive expansion of public sector employment, but to little effect. Schools are not performing massively better. Our streets are not safer and our transport system is certainly not any better. The man in the street, whose taxes have been paying for these, knows that public services have not improved. Indeed, that is what the polls have shown. Against that background of failure in public sector performance and in public service delivery, it is important to take time to examine the role of public/private partnerships.
Let me start by affirming for the record that noble Lords on these Benches believe that the private sector has an important role to play in the delivery of services in the public sector. We have long favoured the contracting-out of services whenever the private sector can do it better. It was my party, when in government, that invented the private finance initiative. My noble friend Lord Lamont set the ball rolling in 1992, and following that my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke pushed it forward. I was pleased to play a small part myself as a founder member of his Private Finance Panel, set up in 1993.
The private finance initiative, as we conceived it, was a way of harnessing the private sector's skills of risk management, innovation and cost-effective

1273
service delivery. Our aim was better and cheaper public services, to which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, referred. We actively sought new ways of involving the private sector, not only in infrastructure projects, but also, for example, in the building and management of the delivery of services in prisons. We opened up the issues of how the private sector could contribute to the provision of services and facilities in the NHS and in schools. My party bequeathed not only a healthy economy to the Labour Party in 1997, but also the firm foundations of a successful private finance initiative.
It is our belief that if that momentum had been sustained, PFIs could have been a major force for the delivery of public services on an improved basis. This required real innovation. The noble Lord. Lord Skidelsky, referred to innovation as being a necessary part of the PFI and PPPs. It also required the boundary of service provision between the public and private sectors to be challenged and changed.
What has happened since 1997? The Government have massively expanded the PFI. The Treasury's website shows that since 1997 the capital value of PFI deals has been over £30 billion. At one level we are extremely pleased with that because imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
But at another level we have some real concerns that the PFI has not been used to improve the delivery of public services as we had intended. In practice, it has been used as a device to get borrowing off the public sector balance sheet. We estimate that around £100 billion has been excluded from the Chancellor's borrowing figures and, like the Institute for Fiscal Studies, we believe that if PFI debts are counted properly, the Chancellor's golden rule is very likely to be breached.
As I have said, we saw innovation at the heart of the PFI. If there has been innovation since 1997, it has been in the complex financing structures that underpin the average PFI deal and not in the way that services are delivered. When I covered the health brief on these Benches, I visited some PFI hospitals. One of the strong messages that I got was that innovation was simply not emerging from the way that the PFI was being pursued. That may be the key to the lack of efficiency gains identified by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf.
We all sign up to the proposition that PFI deals must represent value for money to the taxpayer. This has been examined several times—for example, by the NAO. We agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that PFI has generally delivered projects on time and on budget in stark contrast to the public sector's performance before we introduced PFI.
I always had doubts about why the public sector could not achieve the same result through hard-nosed and well specified procurement contracts but there are still too many runaway projects, such as the Scottish Parliament building, which tell me that PFI does indeed add something that the public sector would not achieve by itself.
1274
Whether all of these projects will deliver value for money in the long term is, in my view, an open question. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, echoed that scepticism. As he pointed out, it is, unfortunately, not a question that can be answered until we have many more years of experience of how these PFI contracts work out in practice.
Much depends on the effectiveness of the long-term maintenance obligations. The public sector is paying today for the long-term costs of delivering fully maintained buildings and we have yet to see whether PFI will actually deliver assets that are maintained to the high standards that have been specified. If it does not do so, we should be well aware that at the heart of PFI arrangements are thinly capitalised special purpose vehicles which may not be up to bearing the strain of things going wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, reminded us.
Another area that can be judged only in the long term is how well contracts can deliver reconfigurations to meet the changing needs of service delivery. Clearly contracts cannot specify what we do not know today, but we do know that some areas of service provision are likely to be subject to major change. For example, we are fairly sure that health services will be delivered differently in 15 years' time. But we do not know exactly and, therefore, what impact that will have on PFI contracts.
One of the things I learnt from my days as a seller of services is that, with a tight basic contract, the real profits are made through contract variations. That is when one has the upper hand in negotiating. We can but speculate as to what will happen to the cost of PFI contracts when they have to be renegotiated to meet changing needs, but my money is on rising costs and declining value for money.
I have spent my time talking about the private finance initiative, but that is only part of public/private partnerships. PPPs are a bit of an enigma. The Government have helpfully given a description of the different types of PPP in their publications but I detect some muddled thinking. To prepare for today's debate I checked some of the Government's websites and found quite a wide variation in usage. For example, the DfES website describes a school project in Ellesmere Port as a PPP, notwithstanding that it is wholly financed by a combination of DfES and ODPM money. I am not sure which one of those is meant to be the public or private part of that partnership. DfID's website takes one to a hilarious quiz, which talks about a water project in New York in the year 1800, featuring private sector corruption, and describes it as a PPP. If the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, gets his way and space exploration manages to get to Mars and brings back a visitor for us, I do not think he would find any of this easy to understand.
The Government usually describe partial privatisations and the wider markets initiative as PPPs. Whether these have made any contribution to the performance of the public sector is a moot point. They include the partial privatisation of NATS, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred in some

1275
detail. It was very interesting but I do not believe that we can regard it as a shining example of a PPP, certainly in its early days.
Often the term PPP is used to cover up the bailing-out of private sector projects, such as the Channel Tunnel rail link. I, for one, wait with bated breath to see whether the next bail-out PPP is the Channel Tunnel itself.
I wish that we could identify a clear contribution to public sector performance through public/private partnerships, but the way in which the Government have developed PPPs and PFI do not lead to that conclusion. They are often no more than a device to raise money for the Chancellor or to keep liabilities off his balance sheet. PPPs talk the language of partnership but financial expedience is their driving force. It is a pity that the Government have squandered their inheritance.
5.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for introducing this subject and for doing so in such a wide-ranging and philosophical way. He is a living example of the fact that if you do not believe in jet lag you do not actually have it. It was an impressive introduction. It has led to a very good debate, for which I am grateful.
My response to the debate has to start with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that this arises out of need. In other words, what is the problem that has to be addressed by the various forms of interaction between private and public finance? If, as we do, we have an objective to deliver world-class public services, we have to have substantial increases in investment—and, of course, matching reforms—to deliver services that meet public expectations in this country.
Investment in public services had been on a declining trend since the 1970s. That meant falling standards in schools, hospitals and other public service assets and we needed to address the legacy of neglect which we inherited in 1997. There were backlogs of school repairs estimated at £7 billion; maintenance backlogs in the National Health Service of more than £3 billion; and, of course, as everyone can see—even if they do not go to schools or hospitals—huge, long-term neglect of the transport infrastructure.
What was the reaction? It certainly was not to substitute public finance initiatives or public/private partnerships for public investment. We have provided for a massive increase in the investment being delivered to schools, hospitals, public transport and the public sector estate. The total investment in public services stands at more than £40 billion—compared with £23 billion in 1997—and it will continue to rise to more than £48 billion in 2005–06. So that is the answer to the fourth question of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. He will appreciate that I cannot take his questions in order—they were very acute questions—but I shall try to deal with as many of them as I can. But certainly PFI or PPP are not substitutes for public investment.
1276
I want to make two modest points about the balance between public investment and private investment. First, as I said, the vast majority—more than 85 per cent—of the increased investment is conventionally procured public investment which does not use private finance. Therefore, in answer to the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, it is incumbent on us to look carefully at those factors which distinguish cases where more private investment is appropriate and those where less private investment is appropriate.
On the whole, PPP is a modest addition to the investment policy of the Government. My second point is that there is no contrast between the ideals and values in public service as is suggested. After all, in everything we do in the public service we are using privately produced goods and services. All the inputs—the pens, the computers, the construction work—has always been private, and there is no change in that. The difference introduced by PPP is that some of the output—in other words, after the construction phase, the continuing maintenance and availability for use of these public sector assets—is now in the private sector as well. The ownership, of course, remains in the public sector. The difference, I suggest, is that the private sector is now being required to take responsibility for what it does rather than simply selling it to the public sector and walking away. That is my answer to the first question of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf.
We have to look, coldly and objectively, at that minority of public investment which is appropriate for private sector involvement and that which is not, and whether we are making that judgment correctly. The evidence shows that major PFI investment projects have been completed in time in almost 90 per cent of cases. In every case, the public sector has paid what it expected to pay, whereas in traditional procurement, three-quarters of the projects were late and three-quarters over budget. That gives rise to the question: why are we still using traditional procurement methods? I think the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, should be attempting to answer that question—q is a profound issue which we inherited from her government.
I have used the quotation before from Jeremy Coleman, the Assistant Auditor-General of the NAG because it is so vivid. He said that,
"the evidence is that on the whole PFI deals deliver to time and to budget. You get what you want, you get it when you want it and it costs you what you thought it was going to cost".
Of course, it is right that we should be looking in detail at the boundaries between projects which are suitable for PPP and PFI and those which are not. One of the issues clearly is the long-term benefits of having the responsibility for maintenance and operation in the hands of those who made the capital investment. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, made that point very effectively. It is true that in many cases we simply do not know because not enough years have passed for us to be able to tell. But I do not think we can draw the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, about it, even if we cannot track through the 25 or 30 years' subsequent life of PFI projects, and we are not able to

1277
give useful answers to his question about individual projects. Because we are responsible financially, we give an estimate of the future obligations for 25 years, and we have done for some time. That is contained in Table C20 of the Red Book. We are not shying away from that.
What kinds of projects have a serious risk both to contractors and ultimately to the private financiers which can be transferred from the public sector with benefit to the public sector? If a PPP project goes wrong, the private financiers would have to replace the contractor, knowing that there would be no payments until the service was online. That, as has been said by a number of speakers, contrasts with the soft budget constraint of traditional public procurement. I will not go as far as some of the Ministry of Defence's examples, but it is clear that there is a tip-over point. With a soft budget constraint, you get to the stage where, however much goes wrong, you cannot afford to cancel the project.
That is what we are trying to avoid with PPP. The analysis given by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, was particularly important. He is right in pointing out that contractors cannot take big equity risks—it has to be for the financiers behind them. Therefore, you are restricted with PFI and PPP to those projects in which there is a market for the ultimate financial risk. We have abandoned PFI on information technology projects, for example, because there is no such market.
Even if we do not go down to the far end of the maintenance period, the experience of construction costs is that, according to the NAO, only 8 per cent of PFI projects are more than two months late, which contrasts with the 1999 figures of 73 per cent being late.
There has not been much discussion, oddly, of value for money. There is a range of possible value for money criteria and National Audit Office research shows that three-quarters of public sector clients described the performance of their PFIs as satisfactory or better. That contrasts rather favourably with the previous situation.
I have accepted that we have made mistakes. I have accepted that we have made mistakes in IT projects, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith, welcomed that. The fast change in the sector makes it hard to define the outputs, therefore making it hard to do the risk transfer which is necessary.
The other example, which relates to accusations of bureaucracy, concerns projects worth less than £20 million. There is no doubt that in the early days of PFI, the time taken by lawyers and accountants in drawing up contracts was excessive. That would continue to be the case if we went on doing it for smaller projects, so we have cut those out of the system.
We have taken steps to deal with excessive bureaucracy and expense. We set up Partnerships UK to provide private sector expertise to the public sector which has the responsibility of commissioning PFI projects. We set up CABE—the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment—to look at
1278
the role of design in improving the efficiency of buildings. The Office of Government Commerce has been doing that as well. Generally speaking, standardisation of projects will reduce bureaucracy and the initial costs.
There have been criticisms this afternoon of standards of accounting and reporting PFI liabilities. I reject outright the repeated criticism from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that we are trying to do it to get it off balance sheet. If we were, we were pretty bad at it, because 57 per cent of these projects are on balance sheet. It is always a little arcane how the national statistician and the National Audit Office can legitimately, in accordance with their own rules, produce two different criteria. I have had difficulty in explaining it to the House before. However, this really is not a serious consideration. The independent Comptroller and Auditor-General, in his general report for 2001–02 said,
"where he considers that the liabilities arising from financing arrangements are not correctly reflected in the financial statements of the bodies that he audits then he will qualify his opinion and report to Parliament accordingly".
However, he goes on to say:
"He has not yet had the need to do so".
I think that is as clear an exoneration from that charge as it is possible to have.
There have been a number of criticisms of particular projects. I do not think I can deal with them all, but I will try to deal with some. The first was the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, of the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise Mapeley Steps project. He has been reading Private Eye as intensively as I have. You do not go into a project of that kind expecting to have to produce a letter of comfort within 12 months of entering it. So, clearly, something was not as intended. However, I do not think that the noble Lord can deny that there has been fairly intensive public scrutiny or that new guidance has been issued, including model procurement clauses that relate to the issues in the Mapeley Steps case. In particular, they provide that in future we shall not allow offshore tax avoidance structures for PFI projects.
I cannot accept the criticisms that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, made, either about Paddington Hospital, where the project has not yet gone out to the market—so he is a little bit premature—or of the bond issue alternative for the Tube that he is recommending, and which Ken Livingstone used to recommend before he took responsibility for those matters. After all, there is no risk transfer in a bond issue, and no one will deny that there is risk transfer for those operating the Tube PFI.
I was interested and encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, said about the NATS project, which bore out many of the things that I have said. We have no present plans to change the share structure of NATS. I do not know that I have an answer to his other question about whether employee shares are to be traded in future; I do not believe so, but if I am wrong I shall write to him.

1279
Let us consider the actual record of better delivery of services by the PFI programme. It has expanded, along with public investment. In 1997–98, PFI investment was worth £1.5 billion; in 2002–03, it will deliver investment worth £4.6 billion. We have signed projects worth £35.5 billion with £32.1 billion since 1997. Those have included health projects worth £3.2 billion; £1.9 billion of schools projects; and investment in transport worth £20.5 billion. We have delivered 34 new hospitals and 119 new health schemes; 239 new and refurbished schools; 23 new roads and public transport schemes; 47 new fire and police stations, courts and prisons. When a PFI has proved successful—and I repeat, when and only when it has proved successful—we are expanding it.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, went through the sectors rather effectively. In health, projects worth £6.5 billion are planned to sign by 2005–06, with 11 new hospitals being built and 44 more redeveloped. In education, we have already planned £1.5 billion in investment, to redevelop or refurbish 278 schools and deliver 45 new schools. In housing, 28 projects will deliver capital investment worth more than £800 million by 2005–06.
If there are possibilities of going into further new markets, we shall examine them. There is the Deputy Prime Minister's sustainable community plan, to deliver urban regeneration and investment in growth areas. There is waste and recycling, for which the characteristics of our programme mean that PFI could offer significant value-for-money gains. There is investment in social housing, and continued investment in the prison estate. I believe that there are many more.
That is a long way from what we inherited in 1997. I remind the House that, in that year, the previous government demanded universal testing of PFI opportunities for all public investment projects. That was a totally extravagant bureaucratic process that was entirely unjustified by the results. In contrast, by being selective and imaginative and by looking at the results—after all, there have been 34 National Audit Office reports on PFI since 1997; there is no shortage of public scrutiny—we are on the way to making a modest—and I have always said "modest"—but real improvement to the quality of public services in this country. It is important that we should see that as a complement to a massive and comprehensive public investment programme, delivering the infrastructure of public services on time, to budget, with quality locked in for the long term.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, there has been a wide though not uncritical acceptance of the value of PPP, and I hope that we shall be able to return to the topic as it unfolds and develops. It remains only for me to say how grateful I am to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, with their wealth of intellectual and political acumen and technical and practical experience. I also thank those who have had
1280
the fortitude and interest to sit through the debate without taking part. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia
5.36 p.m.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood Lord Sutherland of Houndwood rose to call attention to the needs of those who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to my colleagues on the Cross Benches who agreed that the topic of Alzheimer's and dementia was appropriate for debate at this time, and to the distinguished group of speakers from all parts of the House who have listed themselves to take part.
The fact that this year sees the 25th anniversary of the foundation of the Alzheimer's Society and the 10th anniversary of Alzheimer's Scotland—Action on Dementia, gives us an opportunity to pay tribute to the work of those societies, and particularly the many thousands of voluntary workers associated with them. I also take the opportunity to declare an interest as the president of the second of those two organisations, and as someone associated in the private care home sector with three organisations—the English Community Care Association, Scottish Care, and NHP—all of which are involved in the provision of care for many who suffer in this way.
Few in this House will not have encountered through the needs of a relative, friend or neighbour, the significant place which the diseases of dementia now hold in our society. To a considerable extent that is because we now all live longer—much longer than we did in preceding generations. All being well, that trend will continue. The robustness of debates in this House illustrates well the benefits of such longevity to the wider community.
Demographic change in our society brings opportunity as well as some problems of adjustment. In the current state of medical science, about which some who will contribute to this debate are clearly more competent than I am to comment, the comparatively wide prevalence of Alzheimer's is the central of many examples to which we must pay more attention, whether as individuals, communities or governments. I look forward to the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, in that area, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, among others.
Even a layman can read the message of the statistics, however. Dementia affects more than 750,000 people in the UK alone. The consequences of that are heavy, both in terms of individual and family suffering, on the one hand, and in terms of financial costs. The number of those living beyond the age of 80 happily rises each year, but with it also does the risk of developing dementia. An average of one in five who live beyond the age of 80 are likely to develop some form of

1281
dementia. Approximately one in 20 of those who live beyond 65—and I look around meaningfully—will develop dementia. Indeed, more than 18,000 people under 65 already suffer from some form of dementia.
Those are the statistics, and the impact is wide within our society. There is the immediate and often initially devastating impact on families. There is the huge need for non-professional carers, and on them a huge burden falls. The two societies that I mentioned at the beginning of this speech devote much time and energy to the support of those non-professional carers.
Looking around the House and looking at the list of speakers, I have no doubt that other speakers in this debate who are very experienced in the implications will tell us more about the impact of the development of Alzheimer's and dementia on carers. At a more formal level, there is a need for the recruitment, training and regulation of those for whom the provision of such care is a career as well as a commitment; for example, nurses or residential and community carers. This is a problem of what used to be called "manpower planning and training" to which further attention must be given.
An additional impact of dementia and Alzheimer's is to be seen in the pattern of expenditure in our health service. As we know, the health service devotes a major part of its resources to the older members of our community. As I have suggested, in this group the problems of dementia figure significantly. Equally, the impact on the care home sector, both private and public, finds it struggling to deal with demand at local and regional levels. If one looks at the numbers, there appears to be roughly the right number of beds and rooms available on a national basis, but their distribution is not helpful to the needs of folk living in one part of the country where there is under-provision and over-demand. If one is unwell in Croydon, it is not helpful to be offered a residential place in Bootle—albeit that Bootle might be a fine place to live otherwise. Equally, the problem of delayed discharges is still with us. It has to do with the difficulty we have in providing adequate care on a long-term basis for those of whom we speak.
In due course, I shall be critical of some aspects of government policy and the implementation of that policy, but I want to recognise that, in committing increasing sums to the provision of care for the elderly, the Government have shown good intent in this area. That should be recognised.
Before turning to that issue, let me stress some positive factors. It is easy to be very gloomy about Alzheimer's and dementia. The first positive factor is the enormous commitment in the voluntary sector to drawing attention to, and supporting the needs of, carers and those who need care. There is still more to be done but if, with jaded political palates, noble Lords are tempted to cynicism, I urge them to look at the altruism in our society that is seen so clearly in the adoption of the burdens and responsibility of caring, not least in the area we are speaking about today. It is no rose-tinted scenario that you will see there. Do not expect simply to smile automatically. There is a real
1282
burden, but it is a burden and a responsibility that is widely shared in our community and that speaks well of the continuation of genuine altruism in our society.
One positive part of all of this is that these are the problems of a society in which one consequence of affluence is increasing longevity. This is not bad news, this is good news. No longer do we retire at the statutory age and conveniently die within two years. That is progress; it is good. It is opportunity rather than problem.
Many of the illnesses that curtailed demographic optimism and reduced longevity in the past have been contained through the dedication of our sisters and brothers in medical care and research. Research allowed us to deal with the suffering, as well as the costs, of stomach ulcers. That is a benefit to the individual, to the Exchequer and to those who have relatives who suffer in that way. Similar research hares are running in relation to Alzheimer's and doubtless we shall hear more of this later in the debate from other speakers. If success is achieved in research into Alzheimer's that is equivalent to the success of betablockers in dealing with some heart conditions, then the benefits will be shared by patients, carers and, I stress, by the Exchequer as well. The fact that someone, for example, who has an ulcer no longer needs days and days of hospital care after major surgery and thereafter needs a significant period of convalescence is a benefit to the Exchequer as well as to the individual. I have no doubt that progress in research in the area of Alzheimer's and dementia will see some such benefits coming to us in due course. There is no reason, in principle, why with adequate research support—I could not help inserting that—this should not happen in the areas of dementia and Alzheimer's.
One of the more positive messages that must also be spread is that, although Alzheimer's is a degenerative disease, it is not an immediate "all or nothing". This must be understood by those who have to confront it. Through support, care and drug treatment, symptoms can sometimes be contained and quality of life maintained well beyond expectations when the word was first mentioned. That message needs to be relayed. I have met some people who suffer from Alzheimer's who, with the support of a sympathetic employer and perhaps a rescheduling of duties, continue to be employed. It is not simply an immediate cessation of normal life. I have one correspondent, a dementia sufferer, who has devoted his time and energies to the positive task of designing cards to be used in local communities in a way that makes the use of public transport much more possible and reasonably safe. This is enterprise from someone who suffers. It is self-help that belies the suggestion that it is "all or nothing" immediately. Knowledge and understanding of this is part of the support system which the two national societies provide.
So is all as well as can be expected? I seem to be giving a very positive message. Is the ship sailing in comparatively calm waters? May we as a society feel reassured that all is being done that ought to be done? Inevitably the answer is, "No". I submit to noble

1283
Lords that there is a flaw at the centre of government policy. The flaw in question is accompanied by the frustration of those who, watching the implementation of this policy, see large sums of money being spent, and the good intent of the Government, but want to raise issues of value for money and of how the money is spent.
If you doubt this, I recommend the special report of the health ombudsman, NHS funding for the long term care of older and disabled people HC 399. The essence of the matter is the manner in which need for care is assessed at local level and the eligibility of individuals for financial support. In this report, the ombudsman is not shouting, "Let's have more money" but rather, "Let's look at how the assessments are carried out and how the allocations of support are being made". She writes of the consequence of her recommendations in that report in a subsequent report:
"My office has received over 3,000 complaints about this subject since we published our special report".
A hitherto officially unacknowledged problem is identified here in the work of the health ombudsman.
The problem that still dogs the implementation of government policy is this: Alzheimer's is not treated as an illness or a disease on all fours with other illnesses and diseases. If you are unfortunate enough to have heart problems, to the best of their ability, the staff of the National Health Service will deal with them, and there will be no charge for the care offered, even if it involves state-of-the-art surgery and the excellence of our intensive care units. The same is true, for example, of cancer of the lung, or cirrhosis of the liver, even if in part it is self-induced. This does not apply to the needs of many people who suffer from Alzheimer's. In all parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland, they will be progressively charged for what is described as "social or personal care" if they have assets over £18,000. At one time that may have seemed a large sum of money, but it is not a criterion that identifies "the rich". A normal-sized family car costs about £18,000 and may be the product of years of scrimping and saving. A Department for Work and Pensions report in 2002 showed that 61 per cent of self-funders in residential care had incomes of under £200 per week. These are not rich people. Yet if they have any assets at all—regardless of their weekly or annual income—they will be charged for their care until their assets are depleted to £10,000. They will be so charged, irrespective of the fact that their only offence is that they perhaps suffer from a brain-based disorder. That cannot be right.
The problem to which the Government are not yet facing up is the attempt to draw the line between healthcare and social care and to define eligibility for support on that basis. A sign of the artificiality of that is the old joke, "What is the difference between a health bath and a social bath?" Formerly, a bath given in the hospital by a nurse was a health bath, while a bath given at home by the local care worker was a social bath. It is nonsense. I suppose that that is the example that everyone uses.
Recent redefinitions have focused not only on where care is provided but on who provides it. If it is provided or directly supervised by a doctor or an NHS nurse, then the patient is not required to pay. If care is provided by someone else, perhaps a non-professional or a professional carer in the patient's own home, the cost of the care will fall to the patient. I have already quoted the health ombudsman's report (HCI 19). As I said, it stated that more than 3,000 subsequent complaints were lodged. She commented: "I hope"—not "I know", but simply "I hope"—
"that, as a result, many complainants will be satisfied that the patients involved will have been re-assessed fairly against lawful and transparent criteria".
There, it might be said, is the rub. Are the criteria lawful and transparent?
In the report of the Royal Commission on the Funding of Long Term Care of the Elderly, which I had the honour to chair, a whole chapter was devoted to how to define care and the need for care. Without exception, our 2,000 correspondents and the many professional bodies that gave evidence to us indicated that, for them, that is an artificial distinction that cannot in practice be drawn in a transparent and legally acceptable way. Yet, government policy and the Government's advice to local authorities is based on drawing such an artificial distinction—hence the difficulty at local level; hence the ombudsman's involvement; hence the 3,000-plus complaints lodged immediately on her first ruling on the matter.
I am not suggesting that this is simply a call for more money. If the problem is one of resource and cash and people are to have these needs met on an equitable basis, then it is a problem for health service funding, and other charges may have to be introduced. If that is so, let us face the problem squarely and not in a manner that continues to penalise those suffering from Alzheimer's or dementia. I beg to move for Papers.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, for initiating this debate and for the authoritative and caring nature of his remarks. I, too, declare an interest, not only as a layman but as president of the Flintshire Alzheimer's Society in Wales.
Dementia is a terminal condition. In the later stages, people experience severe memory loss and lose the ability to walk, wash and feed themselves unaided. Chewing and swallowing are difficult, and many will be doubly incontinent and lose their speech. However, unlike those with other terminal conditions such as cancer, people with dementia do not necessarily qualify for free care on the National Health Service. That is the nub of the matter.
Much of the issue has to do with the Government's definition of what constitutes health care. A large part of the care which people with dementia require comes from care assistants which the Government class as "social care" and is means tested. If that care were

1285
provided by a nurse, then people with dementia would not be charged for care. In all of this, that is an important fact.
There is also a need to raise the profile of dementia care in the National Health Service and social care. People with dementia are regularly cared for in care settings where the staff do not always know how to care for them effectively. So perhaps dementia-care training should be a compulsory part of training for all those in the National Health Service and in social care. Of course, I hasten to say that there is widespread effective and devoted care. But that is not always the case.
People with dementia and their carers want to remain in their own homes as long as possible. Regrettably, however, there is often not enough support to make that a reality. So the result is that many have to go into long-term care far earlier than is necessary. That is not the best solution either for those immediately involved or for society more generally. After all, there is huge pressure on long-term places. Moreover, we also need better access to respite care. In this subject, respite care is a boon to hard-pressed families. The question should be asked, when shall we have more?
Access to drugs has improved since the National Institute for Clinical Excellence issued guidance, but will the Department of Health please ensure that the national institute guidance is implemented uniformly and effectively? Many think that the situation requires effective implementation. The aim is to give affected people the chance to benefit from these treatments wherever possible.
In the past 30 years, and perhaps more, I have visited at least a dozen such homes a year. I have seen at first hand the terrifying impact of dementia. I have witnessed the heartbreak and the perplexity of the attendant loyal and loving families. The National Alzheimer's Society has been a shining light in all of this. It has become an authoritative leader and opinion former in this complex field. For many years I worked with the society's previous chief executive, Mr Harry Cayton. He has been a good friend to many. I wish his successor, Neil Hunt, all the very best.
Surely your Lordships will agree that the society is one of the most successful and honourable organisations in the land. I am glad that the society is now spreading its influence across the Principality. This debate enables me to praise sincerely the Flintshire Alzheimer's Society and particularly its newly formed committee. Our chairman, Mrs Hughes, leads a very dedicated team which links up with our north Wales officer, Alwyn. It is clear to me in the work that I do with the committee that its dedication is definitely engendered by personal family experience, often of a very prolonged and harrowing nature. The committee members are very public spirited people. They seek to help others now facing similar challenges to those that they had to face up to. I admire them and I know that there are many people like them throughout our country. They should be praised often and loudly, and thanked.
1286
The Flintshire society is a good mix of voluntarism, practicality and compassion. We have been encouraged by very generous financial support from local employers such as Airbus, MBNA, HSBC and the steel-making company Corus. Additionally, our county council and Deeside Rotary Club have been in the van. They have been generous and we should thank them. Our local office is now open several days a week. We are a small, good quality team seeking to give service in our community. It is a fact that we are needed. We are new, we need more money and we need more backing, but I know that the work we are doing is of the finest. No praise is too high for the committee.
Finally, I urge the Government to make care available on the National Health Service and to give even more help and assistance to the Alzheimer's Society.
6.1 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, for having brought the terrible plight of those with dementia, and those who are about to experience dementia, to the fore.
Before diagnosis, memory lapses fluctuate with delusions, depression or even suicide attempts. The family, in despair, may find the diagnosis a relief and may say, "We always knew there was something wrong". But it is after that that the full reality of the disease dawns. No one should underestimate the burden for carers, nor how, with excellent professional care, that can be eased. Other noble Lords will address the issues of patient care and the stresses on carers. The personality who was is no more and the family grieves long before the person dies.
I plan to confine my remarks to the importance of research and the hope that it holds. I am proud to declare my interest as vice-dean of University of Wales College of Medicine, which is at the very forefront of genetic research in this field. Currently, about 536,000 people across Britain have moderate or severe cognitive impairment. The incidence rises steeply with age. Estimates are that the overall numbers are predicted to rise still further because of ageing demography combined with earlier onset vascular disease over the next 20 years.
Current treatment of Alzheimer's dementia relies on the group of drugs that inhibit an enzyme in the brain called acetylcholinesterase. These drugs work by blocking the breakdown of acetylcholine, a deficit of which seems to contribute to the development of certain behavioural disturbances seen in Alzheimer's. Four of these drugs are currently licensed. They each work in slightly different ways, but despite that overall they are effective only in about 40 per cent of people. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence looked at these very early on and produced helpful guidance on prescribing and monitoring. The monitoring, to be undertaken at one and three months, is expensive because it is time consuming. If the drugs are not helpful after three months, they are stopped; if they are effective, monitoring is ongoing. However, they only delay the time when long-term care is needed.

1287
These drugs are also helpful for a time regarding demential arising from vascular disease but are not licensed for this use. Lewy body dementia, a specific type of pathology manifested by fluctuating confusion mingled with visual hallucinations, also responds well to these drugs. So where does the drug research need to be done? The neurobiology of behaviour must be understood to enable drugs to target specific problem changes—functional neuroradiology with PET scans has much to offer, both in understanding the disease and in tracking the response to drugs.
Other bio-markers of disease progression need to be developed. But the difficulty is that these patients already have impaired competence, so consent is problematic. Some will have left an advance statement that they would wish to enter a research study that may help them or someone else with the same disease. Some in the early stages may have given consent to enter trials, but those with more advanced disease also need to be studied to ensure that later stages can be understood, with an aim to ameliorate. The Government have been looking very carefully at issues around mental incapacity and I hope that the European regulations on research will not exclude these patients from participating so that better treatments can be developed for them and for the next cohort of sufferers.
The Alzheimer's Society and the Alzheimer's Research Trust are jointly funding the establishment of a "brain hank". This will be an incredibly important resource. Carers and sufferers are very supportive of this plan to collect post-mortem brain tissue and I hope the potential difficulties that the Human Tissue Bill may pose can be ironed out so that the unique potential of such a tissue bank can be realised.
Genetics research may hold one key to unlock understanding of the pathology. Genes have been localised that seem to predispose to being ill with dementia. Blood samples from families where there is more than one sufferer are proving important and again it will be important that the Human Tissue Bill does not impose so many barriers to epidemiological research that it becomes impossible to look at the epidemiology of traits of dementing diseases.
Another consideration must be the relatives. The family of a person with dementia may have had a traumatising and exhausting experience. When the person finally dies family members may well feel relief, wish to escape from their recent experiences and move on. If researchers have to go back repeatedly after the patient's death to obtain consent for studies that look at the surplus specimens of blood, or other tissue, many of those relatives will be deeply upset and disturbed, being hauled back in time in their bereavement process. They, of course, need to be able to access information on research that is ongoing, but at the time and rate of their choosing.
The brain is the very seat of personality, reasoning and all higher functions as well as the control house of all activities and regulation of the body itself. So the role of research databases, perhaps accessed through those charities that support research in this area and
1288
have been so active in moving forward the frontiers of improved care, will be very important if the complexities of this disease process in the brain are to be understood and then controlled, both for the good of current patients and, equally importantly, for the next generation of patients who are just round the corner.
6.8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships for the first time I should like to express my thanks to Members of this House and others who have made my induction thus far wholly congenial and relatively painless. I am most grateful and trust that it will continue in similar vein.
I wish to say something today about the pastoral care of those suffering from dementia and their capacity for spiritual awareness. My interest in this subject springs partly from the experience of trying to care for my mother-in-law who suffered from dementia for some 13 years. For much of that time my wife and I attempted to do this in our own home but, sadly, there came a time when this was no longer possible. During the time that she was with us, there were occasionally lighter moments as, for example, when my mother-in-law chastised my secretary for not cleaning the cooker properly. We quickly became aware that, in reality, that was more a mechanism for helping us to cope with the situation than any alleviation of her own suffering. For us, as for so many carers, the constant challenge was to remember that she was still a person and not simply a patient.
The Churches, in common with other faith communities, have of course always been aware of the problem. In past ages, physical illness often took its toll of people before dementia set in. Now, with people living longer as we have been reminded, it is not uncommon to find that those whom we love are physically well but suffering from a mental impairment that makes normal relationships difficult, if not impossible.
It is my underlying conviction that the subject of dementia needs a specifically religious or spiritual perspective, and not simply one drawn from medical science or social policy, crucial though those are. In saying that, I should like to quote the pioneering work of Professor John Swinton of Aberdeen University. He has written and spoken a great deal on spirituality and mental impairment. He points out that dementia is frequently misunderstood as a form of mental illness, saying:
"The particular way in which dementia has been constructed under the influence of the bio-medical model of health and illness has blinded us to some fundamental issues of personhood, spirituality and humanness. The crucial significance of dementia as a human experience, and indeed as a deeply spiritual experience … has been overlooked or down-played in the development of current understandings of dementia and accompanying modes of caring. Re-constructing dementia using a spiritual perspective based on the lived experience of dementia (spirituality being understood in its widest sense as the human quest for meaning, purpose, value and hope, as well as that which is transcendent and captured within established religions) … offers new possibilities of understanding dementia. A concentration on the spiritual contributes to a process of holistic reframing of what dementia is

1289
as a biological, social and spiritual phenomenon, moving us towards a perspective which captures the fullness of sufferers as relational and spiritual persons with concomitant needs. Such an approach helps resurrect the personhood of dementia sufferers and reconnects people who are by definition in the process of being disconnected from self, others and God".
That person-centred approach is very much the one adopted by two organisations to which I would like to draw your Lordships' attention. The Christian Council on Ageing Dementia Group is perhaps best known for its award-winning video "Is Anyone There?". That network first came together some 15 years ago out of a shared concern that people with dementia were often not regarded as persons with the same rights and spiritual needs as others. The council's excellent practice guide offers practical advice to carers on how an understanding of spiritual needs may be integrated into existing care plans. It seeks to point to a holistic regime of care for dementia sufferers, a regime which addresses the whole person including the spiritual dimension. The council works in close collaboration with other faith communities and with a growing number of dementia services development centres.
The second organisation to which I refer is located just across my diocesan boundary in Temple Balsall. The Katherine Leveson Foundation offers a focus for inter-disciplinary study on ageing, spirituality and social policy. It seeks to develop an understanding of spirituality as lived by older people, including those suffering from dementia, and to support them in expressing spiritual awareness. It has recently launched a resource directory for those in churches and other places who are working with older people. It offers lectures and seminars on subjects such as "Seeing the Person Behind the Dementia".
I shall quote again, this time from a former dean of Coventry. John Petty retired from our cathedral three or four years ago and is now chaplain in a residential home in Shrewsbury. He describes two worshippers who came recently to one of his services, writing that, "Nancy is Welsh", not that that is relevant. He continues:
"When I put the hymn book into her hands she simply says, 'That's heavy'. Nancy sang in her church choir and knows much of the Prayer Book. Jean is her great companion. Jean once worked for the British Council in Lisbon. They are inseparable. As you push one wheelchair alongside the other, both faces light up but if you ask them the name of their friend they couldn't tell you. A constructed sentence is beyond them and yet the Lord's Prayer, the Nunc Dimittis and the Book of Common Prayer responses flow out".
I suggest that it is probably not possible for us whose minds are still relatively unimpaired properly to evaluate the experiences of those who are able to recognise the familiar words of hymns or prayers, but unable to recognise the face of a favourite daughter or grandson. What is clear, surely, is that if we are to continue to value such people as children of God, we must also continue to treat them as though they are made in God's image. And whatever else that term may mean, it implies a capacity for a relationship with God which exceeds the purely rational.
1290
I have spoken about spirituality and pastoral care. That is not because I am unaware that the House is here to discuss issues of policy and the well-being of the nation. I have spoken this way because I believe that spirituality offers us a way of seeing the individuals who are the focus of the debate in a holistic and relational way. I suggest that talking of the spiritual needs of those with dementia, and, indeed, of their carers, offers a new and fresh perspective on the issue.
I do not underestimate the difficulties that the subject raises, theological difficulties as well as medical. I do not imagine a world in which worship and pastoral care are easy. Nevertheless, it is at this point that I feel Christians and other faith communities may have something to offer.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, with whom I have had a long connection through his chairing of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly. However, it is a most particular pleasure to follow the splendid speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry.
It is always a dilemma what to say on such an occasion, especially as the right reverend Prelate and I have not met officially, nor served on any committees together, nor even until today taken part in any debates in this House together. His Who's Who entry lists his recreations as mediaeval music and woodcutting, but I am afraid that that is no comfort to me as I happen to be tone deaf and not very competent with a carving knife. I consoled myself with the thought that it would be sufficient to say how delighted the whole House would be to welcome another distinguished Member to the Bishops' Benches, and that we looked forward to hearing from him on many occasions in future.
I need not have worried, as it was very clear from the right reverend Prelate's speech that he has the caring experience so familiar to many of us. We were honoured to share in some of that. He and I, along with many others in the House, some of whom are speaking today, share a huge interest and a passionate concern for vulnerable citizens and their carers and those facing difficulties of the kind that we are discussing. His speech was both heart-warming and inspiring. It is an honour to welcome him to this House, and we look forward to hearing him contribute to our debates and the whole legislative process many more times.
Last September, I addressed a conference in Dunedin, New Zealand, organised by the Alzheimer's Society of New Zealand. I was there to talk about the progress made for carers in the United Kingdom and I was billed as the keynote speaker. My speech went quite well, but the real keynote speaker—the real star of the conference and the one who no one will ever forget, having heard her—was the woman who herself had Alzheimer's disease. Her presentation, her honest appraisal of her illness, the effect of it on her

1291
husband—her carer who accompanied her—on her friends and on her whole life was the most compelling presentation I have ever heard. It allowed us a glimpse of the complex dilemmas and the sheer guts of those who cope with this affliction. She, too, spoke movingly about her spiritual journey and I was very much reminded of that during the speech of the right reverend Prelate.
The speech also gave those of us who listened to her ammunition with which to counter the claims sometimes made by those who deal with Alzheimer's patients that they would be happier if they were treated as babies. The argument goes that they lose physical and mental abilities in the opposite order to how children gain them and eventually they return to the infant state. It is a great credit to the work of many physicians and of organisations such as the Alzheimer's Society that we have learnt that acknowledging that some behaviour may be child-like does not require us to infantalise the whole person.
I am reminded of the carer who was looking after her husband, who had Alzheimer's. She said of her husband, who was a music lecturer, "He bounces up and down like a baby in time to music". But she also acknowledged that his child-like pleasure must not mean that she concludes he would now prefer nursery rhymes to listening to opera, as he used to before he was ill. That carer seemed to be very sensitive to those important nuances.
The Alzheimer's Society has led the way in engaging those who are themselves sufferers in the governance of the organisation. It has encouraged them to stand for election to the board and to participate fully. That is a fine example to all voluntary organisations, and the fact that the former chief executive, Harry Cayton—my noble friend Lord Jones mentioned him—is now leading the Government's programme on patient and public involvement will make certain that the trend towards full participation in the development of public policy will continue.
That is good news. But of course we must not forget—and your Lordships would not expect me to—that we must couple the needs of the patients with meeting the needs of those who care for them. Caring for someone in the final stages of Alzheimer's disease is a challenging and isolating experience, however great the love you bear for that person. And you often have a double loss, of course; the loss of the person you love because of the great personality changes that take place, and the loss of your own freedom and the life that you shared together.
We must remember that the needs of the carer may not always be the same as those of the patient. Indeed, they may sometimes, perhaps often, be in conflict; for example, the carer needs some time off, but the patient is unsettled and anxious when anyone else comes in as a substitute. In such situations, the social workers, the medics, the nurses or other family members, have a role as brokers, negotiating to try to meet the needs of both parties.
1292
I said in the debate in which some of us took part last night that huge progress has been made in recognising carers, much of it under this Government, and we must never forget it. There has been new legislation about assessment; changes to earnings limits on benefits; credit allocated to carers for a state second pension; and some easing of age restrictions on other benefits. We now have the right to time off for domestic emergencies and the new Bill will soon come before your Lordships' House, the Carers ( Equal Opportunities) Bill, which will, I hope, promote the principle of equality of opportunity for carers. It is a Private Member's Bill, sponsored by Dr Hywel Francis in the other place. I know that your Lordships will support it when it comes here, with its emphasis on promoting information given out to carers so that they know about their rights.
But however much progress has been made, we must always acknowledge that much more remains to be done. In particular, I would cite the continuation of' funding for carers' breaks—respite for someone looking after an Alzheimer's patient is absolutely essential and government funding is due to finish in 2006; the promotion of more flexible working policies; and the development of more appropriate and flexible services.
There has been a huge change, too, in the attitude of those who come into contact with carers and a real commitment to acknowledging and meeting their needs. The carers' movement, led by Carers UK, has a great deal to be proud of, not least in promoting the position which users and carers now occupy as central to policy making and the development of practice. The changes in the way community care has been delivered over the years have required not just changes in organisational and financial terms, but a huge change in the attitude of those who deliver the services.
It is one thing to say that users and carers should be at the centre of decision-making processes; it is quite another to implement that. That demands a change in the attitude of the professionals about sharing information—and issues of confidentiality surround that when it comes to Alzheimer's patients; about allowing people to make choices that others may not think are the best; about risk-taking; and about managing conflict in relationships. It is also about developing the confidence of users and carers so that they have enough self-esteem to participate in the consultation processes, which are now, I am happy to say, sometimes but not always offered in a way that is not tokenistic and which really result in changes in practice.
It requires, too, that professionals are prepared to redress the imbalance of power which exists between patients and carers and professionals. They should divest themselves of the stereotype images which they may have—typically, a carer for an Alzheimer's patient would be seen as either a martyr or a victim. not necessarily as an equal partner in the development and provision of care. It also requires society to ask some of the more difficult questions which we often shy away from: questions such as, do adult children always have a responsibility to look after their parents?

1293
If so, in these days of serial monogamy, does that extend to extended families? What is your moral obligation to look after your former father-in-law or your step-brother? Those are difficult questions for society, but they need to be addressed when we are thinking about these issues. There is another vexed question: do children have a right to inherit their parents' resources, or should they be used to pay for care?
The carers' movement has an admirable history of pushing us all to address these issues and to look at the rights and needs of carers, recognising them as the prime providers of community care, but never looking at their needs as in conflict with those of the person they are looking after, even if they are—and they usually are—inextricably linked together. We should never forget that the care we give for those with dementia is predicated on the unpaid care of families and community to the tune of £57 billion—I cannot resist reminding your Lordships of that—given willingly and with love and duty. That offers a shining example in any society.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, with whom I had the privilege to work some time ago. We know each other well and I am delighted that he has secured this debate on what is such an important subject. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate. Although I have worked in this field for so long, he reduced me to tears. He reminded us of the spiritual needs of many older people who, just because they suffer from one form or another of dementia, need that spirituality more than ever. They can gain such joy and pleasure from church music, a reminder of their childhood, and the comfort and knowledge that someone cares about them in a wider sense than this world. I was very moved by his speech.
I was extremely fond of an eminent geriatrician, Bernard Isaacs, who, sadly, is no longer with us. I always wished that if any of my elderly family were ill they could go to see Bernard. I loved him dearly and I always remember one remark he made; that we now experience the survival of the unfittest.
That is quite a telling remark: it is a mark of our increasing civilisation and it is a triumph but it is also an enormous tragedy. Thankfully, many people with chronic diseases survive, but the one dread that most of us share is that we may be inflicted with dementia. It haunts us because it is a tragedy when it hits us. It is a tragedy for the dementia sufferer and a tragedy for the whole family and everyone who cares for the sufferer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, has much experience of what it means to be a carer. I do not want to add many words to what she said; I simply want to say that the experience of caring for someone with dementia—someone who becomes unrecognisable as the person whom we used to know and love—leads to hugely mixed emotions. The carer wants the person to
1294
get better. He or she knows that the sufferer will die and therefore, in some ways, wants that person to die because it will be the only escape. With those feelings go tense mixed emotions. The carer is sometimes unable to cope with those emotions and with the problems of caring, and that, of course, can lead tragically to other forms of abuse of the elderly. We know that that is often the case.
In this country, we are sometimes very pleased to be able to say that about only 5 per cent of our elderly population are in any form of residential or institutional care. However, that means that huge numbers of people who suffer from this type of disease are being looked after at home—either in their own home or in that of a member of the family—by devoted carers who must try to manage.
We must also recognise that organisations such as the Alzheimer's Disease Society and the Alzheimer's Research Trust carry out important work but they cannot deal with this huge challenge without a great deal of funding and support from governments across the world. I declare an interest in that I head the International Longevity Centre-UK network hub. It is an international organisation and, through the Alliance for Health & the Future, it is examining indicators of cognitive health across European countries—both European Union countries and accession countries. It is producing health indicators of cognitive health and benchmarks of care. It is US-funded and is looking at the huge problems that this type of disease presents to us all.
Certainly, if there is no change in the dependency rates and patterns of care that we know at present, the number of people in Europe with dementia will rise by 23 per cent by 2020. If we could do something about dementia and if the dependency rates declined by only 1 per cent per year, the numbers in care would remain constant. Therefore, if we could reduce the numbers just a little, we would start to see enormous changes in the care patterns that would be required.
Others, including the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, spoke about the very vexed debate on the financing of health and social care and the definitions of nursing care and so on. In this country, we believe that people who need healthcare should receive it free at the point of need, and we know that there is still gross unfairness in the system. The Alzheimer's Society sent me the following quotation with its briefing:
"My mum is totally bed-bound, doubly incontinent, unable to communicate or feed herself and has swallowing difficulties. She needs care 24 hours a day. I can't understand why she has to pay for her care".
That, to me, is a health need. I hope very much, and expect, that the impact of the health ombudsman cases, the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act and other measures will mean that more people with dementia receive continuing NHS care, paid for outside the hospital environment, as their needs are often health needs and should be recognised as such.
Recently, the Medical Director of BUPA Care Services, Clive Bowman, carried out a survey of the 15,000 residents in BUPA care homes alone. He found

1295
that more than one-third of the residents suffered from dementia—38 per cent in nursing homes and 31 per cent in residential homes. He said that,
"the future of care is brain failure",
unless we do something to stop it. We know that by 2010 in the UK, 840,000 people will have moderate or severe dementia; by 2050, the number will be 1.5 million; and one in 20 of those aged 70 to 79, one in five of those aged 80 to 89, and one in three of those aged 90 or over will suffer from the disease. Whenever I am in a room with many people, I look around and wonder how many of us will suffer from dementia and how many—probably the remainder—will have to care for those who have it.
Statistics provided by the Alliance for Health & the Future estimate that in Europe 5.5 million people suffer from mid or late-stage dementia—the majority with Alzheimer's—and we know that vascular dementia accounts for 20 per cent. But it is possible that some dementias are preventable. We know that many cases of dementia are undiagnosed or wrongly diagnosed. Many elderly people who suffer from clinical depression are, in a way, put aside as suffering from dementia when that is not the case. Therefore, they are not treated in the best way or as well as they might be.
There are some very hopeful signs of what it will be possible to achieve with regard to the dementias. Recently, I heard Professor Colin Blakemore talk about some encouraging results that he had encountered when carrying out research on mice. Those results were almost accidental. As part of the programme of animal welfare, some mice used in the experiments were given toys to play with—for example, tunnels to run through and things to turn around. The mice were injected with Alzheimer's and it was found that it took far longer for those which experienced a great deal of physical and mental activity to develop the disease when compared with the ones which did not. I consider that to be terribly important because genetically we are so similar to mice. That gives us much to think about.
My noble friend Lady Greenfield talks and writes a great deal about the brain's extraordinary capacity to recover from disease and to compensate for the loss of function. Therefore, we must support research efforts and we must do so in the most encouraging ways that we can.
Individually there is much that we can do. Next month at the Annual Public Health Forum, the Alliance for Health & the Future will launch guidelines for a healthy future. One of those concerns cognitive vitality. It provides a helpful contribution and makes sensible recommendations on what we might do to avoid the onset of the dementias. Those include exercises for the brain, physical activity, social activity and intellectual activity. Portsmouth University carried out a study on older people who play bingo. One may not consider that to be terribly stimulating intellectually, but the people who played bingo did not suffer so much, or so early, from dementia as those who did not. I believe that the bingo provided a
1296
combination of social and mental activity. The guidelines also indicate that it is important to manage stress, have enough sleep and feed the brain with a healthy diet, avoiding some of the more dangerous anti-ageing drugs and supplements that are now available. It is also important to have regular medical checks.
In conclusion, we must support research efforts. There is much to be positive about if we recognise the challenges and make worthwhile efforts to support the voluntary sector. The voluntary sector's ca re for people with dementia is extraordinary. I remember a tiny Age Concern organisation, which took people with dementia, washed them, dressed them, and sought to help them to eat and to have their social skills returned and managed that without any professional help.
I remember a hospital psychologist who tried to return people with dementia to normal living by providing activities for them in a school within the hospital. The elderly people did not want to go to the school because their memories of schooling were so dreadful. However, the psychologist had the bright idea of changing the school into a pub inside the hospital. The people suffering from dementia learned the skills in an atmosphere which they found friendly, and half of the unit of dementia sufferers were returned back into the community. Nearly all of them died at home, not in hospital.
Those kinds of experiments are very successful. Despite the fact that Alzheimer's disease is the third most costly disease, less than 2 per cent of biotechnology companies in the US, where much more is spent on this research than here, have any serious programmes for this disease. So, there is a lack of funding for research into Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. If we could postpone the onset of Alzheimer's by two years, we could close down a huge proportion of our care institutions. That needs 10 be done as a high priority. We must support research. I hope the Minister will agree that that is a priority in this country for everyone.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Sutherland on securing this debate, which is important for older people and their carers. I congratulate too the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry on his sensitive and excellent maiden speech.
Having heard other noble Lords, I shall confine my observations to the needs of black and other ethnic minority older people with dementia. It would appear that the incidence of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia among minority ethnic groups in Britain is no different from that of white people. Epidemiological research would give more accurate data in future.
As most migrants from the Commonwealth came to Britain in the 1950s to the 1980s, their populations are ageing at different rates. In the National Census for 2001, people over 65 years of age formed 16 per cent of

1297
the white population but among ethnic minority groups they form 9 per cent of black Caribbeans, 5 per cent of Indians and 4 per cent of Chinese people.
Given the statistics referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, we can expect that with the increasing number of older people, more ethnic minority people will develop Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia in the next decade. They are also more likely to live in poverty and poorer housing than white people due to their previous unemployment or low-paid employment and a shorter time to contribute to pensions. The implications of those factors for statutory services and the NHS to consider in terms of service delivery are significant for the following reasons.
First, older people from minority ethnic communities are not fluent in English and need trained interpreters to access mainstream services. Even those who have been educated in the English language prefer to use their mother tongue as they grow old. This development implies that health and social services will require more trained interpreters in future than today. Part of that language need may be met by recruiting bilingual professionals from a variety of ethnic minority communities engaged in the care of older people.
Secondly, both formal and anecdotal evidence suggests that ethnic minority older people have some of the worst health in the nation and are more likely to experience unsatisfactory treatment from the health and social care system. If health and social care professionals share the patient's culture, communication and satisfaction levels with patients and carers would be better. As more women survive in older age groups, they would prefer care from female professionals. Cultural background influences the care of black and minority ethnic elders. In that context, it is a fallacious stereotype to assume that ethnic minority families, "look after their own".
Today, many African, Asian, Caribbean and Chinese older people tend to live alone rather than continue to live in the extended family. However, they maintain contact and are visited by their children. Carers from ethnic minority communities complain that they do not obtain support from statutory services because they are not able to access the range of help and benefits to which they are entitled. That was discovered in research done by the Afiya Trust and the National Black Care Workers Network in 1999 and 2000. Here, I declare an interest as chairperson of the Afiya Trust, an NGO focusing on the health and social care of the minorities in Britain.
That research led to a good practice guide being published entitled, We Care Too for people working with black and minority ethnic carers. The guide was launched by the Minister of State for Health in January 2002.
The common need of all older people, including those suffering from dementia, is to access services that treat them effectively and with respect and dignity. The so-called "colour blind" approach followed by many
1298
mainstream services has not provided the holistic care needed by ethnic minority older people. For first generation migrant older people, the services provided would involve information in different languages, involvement of community services, availability of staff who speak the same language, provision of appropriate food and access to familiar skin and hair products. Services would be more effective if they respond to different religious and cultural needs.
There have been some initiatives from the statutory sector as well as from voluntary agencies such as Age Concern England and Help the Aged that have promoted the health needs of ethnic minority older people. But continuing research and surveys show that while there are excellent examples of good practice, provision for the diverse needs of ethnic minority older people in the United Kingdom falls far short of the required level. While the National Service Framework for Older People makes only brief reference to ethnic minority older people, it does provide one of the most powerful tools to ensure effective service provision. It is now time to put into practice systems to ensure an appropriate response to needs.
Respite care is a priority because ethnic minority carers encounter particular difficulties accessing respite care for the older person with dementia living with them. Difficulties range from language barriers to concerns about whether the person for whom they care would feel secure and comfortable in respite care. High-quality respite care that caters for the needs of ethnic minority older people may be the factor that allows an individual to continue living in the community with the help of his or her carer rather than being moved into permanent residential care.
So, what can be done to improve the experience of ethnic minority older people and their carers? The Government introduced the Race Relations (Amendment) Act in November 2000. That powerful legislation requires every department in the statutory sector to prepare race equality schemes (RES) to improve the quality of services that they provide and experienced by their ethnic minority users.
Race equality schemes were to be implemented in May 2002 by all government bodies, including the NHS and local government services, but their development and implementation has been patchy and requires monitoring. If these schemes were effectively implemented, ethnic minority older people, including those suffering from dementia, and their carers would experience a better quality of care.
6.50 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Sutherland for securing this deeply important debate. Noble Lords have referred to the importance of manpower planning and the need to consider the workforce. I would like to concentrate on the community and residential care aspect of this topic; to say a few tentative words on the training and status of workers with adults with dementia in residential care; and to reflect on the experience of current practice in residential childcare and how that might help inform us.

1299
In residential childcare there has been a historic divergence with Continental practice. I am told that this took place some time after the Seebohm reforms. In Denmark and Germany the majority of the residential childcare workforce has more than two years of high-quality training before working in such settings. In Denmark the great majority has three years of high-quality training before working with children who are recovering from trauma either due to neglect or abuse.
In 1998, I am given to understand that of workers in this country working in residential settings with children with worse histories than those in Denmark and Germany, 80 per cent had no relevant qualification in what they were doing. So there is a historic divergence in practice between ourselves and the Continent. One remedy which was sought to be made to this in the 1990s was to train-up residential care workers in social work qualifications to ensure that they had CQSWs. It was found that once the residential childcare worker had a social work qualification he or she moved into social work as that was better remunerated and had a higher status. So, regrettably that initiative did not work.
The Government have recognised the problem in this area and have brought forward several important initiatives to improve the circumstances in these settings. Among those is a qualification at national vocational qualification level 3 in childcare for the whole of the workforce. That is an admirable aim and will help to remove those workers who have difficulty in writing and reading reports and in managing numbers. It also is very helpful in improving competency in a number of areas.
But NVQs do not appear to address the problem of status for social care workers in these settings. They can see that social workers now have a three-year degree in social work, whereas they are being given something very different. It is hard to see how they will be properly remunerated for the very challenging work they do unless they have a training which is somewhat more similar to that given to social workers in terms of its depth. I should just add that those studying NVQs are expected to study in their own time; they are not given paid time to do this necessary training.
Perhaps it is time that we gave more thought to a full-blooded dedicated residential care training. The training I am most familiar with is the Postgraduate Certificate in Education where trainee teachers have a placement in a school with which they develop a special relationship over a period of time. A very thorough grounding in theory runs in tandem with that over two years. That seems to be a very thorough and necessary grounding in this important profession.
In Iceland, I understand, there is training for prison staff. Your Lordships may feel that that is quite a jump. But prison staff also work in a residential setting, often with mentally disordered people who are difficult to manage. They serve a one-year probationary period in a prison and one year in a special college which includes a mock-up of a prison for practice. It is recognised that people in residential
1300
settings working in challenging situations need to be highly trained, very well prepared and given a good grounding. I regret that training for prison officers in this country is very far from that. I wonder whether we might try to be more ambitious in terms of the training for those who work in such settings.
On the Continent work with children is informed by the philosophy of pedagogy. That model has been around for more than 60 years. It is an holistic approach to bringing out the best in children and ensuring that the best practice is employed. In Denmark pedagogues—people trained in this theory—also work with elderly people because it is recognised that there are similarities between the needs of children as they grow into adulthood and what happens to adults as they sometimes enter their second childhood.
In conclusion, living and working with troubled children or elderly people who have some mental impairment is a special task, which is distinct from social work. It is immensely challenging. I have run workshops in the past with children with emotional behavioural difficulties. I have never done anything as challenging or as stressful since.
I was speaking to the manager of a children's home recently. It is quite run-of-the-mill for workers to be assaulted by the children because those children have experienced such damage in the past. The workers have to think on their feet all the time and be extremely strategic so that they can pre-empt this behaviour.
I am sure that there are great disjunctions between residential settings for children and residential settings for those adults we are discussing now, but I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to look at current practice in residential childcare and see how that practice might benefit adults in residential care. Perhaps he might care to pay particular attention to what is happening in Scotland with the Scottish Institute for Residential Childcare which provides high quality free consultation and training to residential childcare establishments and really is a manifestation of the greater perhaps commitment of the assembly in Scotland towards residential childcare than we currently have in this country.
The National Children's Bureau is currently looking at the Scottish Institute to see how we might be able to develop such an institute in this country. We might also like to think about whether there may be an opportunity to develop a common workforce pool between those who care for children in residential settings and those who care for elderly people. One reason specific training for residential care staff has not been developed for children is that it was considered that there are not a sufficient number of residential care workers to make it viable. There is that possibility if we do not get the drugs that we hope we will get and do not manage to avoid increasing numbers of elderly people developing dementia in the future.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, in his moving and illuminating speech, observed the need to think about the relational and spiritual sides of

1301
working with such people. I submit that, if staff in residential settings are to bear that in mind and to keep treating their clients not as patients but as people, they need to be highly trained, highly skilled and fit for such work.
7 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Sutherland for initiating this debate, in which we have heard a series of compelling and well-informed contributions. I, too, was much moved by the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry.
The dementias are a group of physical organic diseases of the brain that are different in type, although the commonest is Alzheimer's disease. They result almost always in progressive disintegration of memory, intellect and personality. One form of dementia, less common than Alzheimer's disease, is fronto-temporal dementia; another, which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned, is Lewy body dementia, in which certain Lewy bodies are present throughout the brain, which is often, if not invariably, associated with Parkinson's disease. Then there is the relatively common form of vascular dementia or multi-infarct dementia, which commonly results from repeated minor strokes.
Over the years, there has been a great deal of diagnostic confusion as between Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia. Regrettably, at the moment we do not have a single satisfactory diagnostic marker for Alzheimer's disease. That is crucial because, if one is to carry out research, upon which I shall concentrate in my remarks, it is important that one knows what disease one is treating at that time. There have been a number of suggestions relating to diagnostic markers. Under 10 per cent of cases of Alzheimer's disease are inherited, and three genes have been identified that are associated with those inherited forms of the condition, many of them of early onset. When I was a medical student I was taught that dementia developing before the age of 65—pre-senile dementia, as it was then called—was Alzheimer's disease, but that senile dementia was the disease that came on after 65. It is a very artificial barrier, but we now know that practically all of it is Alzheimer's disease and there is no age differentiation, except for the fact that some genetically determined forms of Alzheimer's disease are associated with early onset.
A marker has been identified called ApoE2, which is often associated with earlier forms of Alzheimer's disease; whereas a much commoner marker, called ApoE4, is more often associated with the late onset of Alzheimer's disease, which is sporadic and not inherited, therefore not genetically determined. Sadly, neither of those markers, which have been recognised for some years, is sufficiently accurate to give a totally accurate diagnosis. Even the most sophisticated psychometric testing, brain imaging and other methods still mean that we are only 85 to 90 per cent accurate in diagnosing Alzheimer's disease. We
1302
urgently need from research much more precise diagnostic information to help us to be certain with what we are dealing.
Many years ago, in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, I was associated with certain colleagues, a psychiatrist called Martin Roth, a geriatrician called Gary Blessed and a neuropathologist called Bernard Tomlinson, who carried out a number of very important pieces of research in which patients admitted for physical illness to geriatric wards volunteered to undergo psychometric testing and later made it clear in their wills that they wished their brains to be examined after death. They discovered during those investigations that the kind of problems that all of us encounter as we become older—difficulty in remembering proper names, known as benign senescent forgetfulness, or, if you prefer, benign cognitive impairment—was associated with increasing age and an increased concentration of structures called senile plaques in the brain. They measured the concentration of those senile plaques according to the number that they could find in a high-powered field under the microscope. But when the concentration of senile plaques became very much greater, one crossed the border into Alzheimer's disease. I shall return to the senile plaque in a moment, because it is crucial for future research.
At that time, biochemical studies were also carried out in which Perrys, in Newcastle, and Bowen and others, in London, took samples of brain obtained at post mortem and measured the concentration of acetylcholine in the brain. Acetylcholine is a common transmitter in the nervous system that conveys messages from one nerve ending to another. That substance is degraded by an enzyme called cholinesterase. They discovered in the Alzheimer brains a very low concentration of acetylcholine, hence they started by later trying to treat Alzheimer's disease by giving precursors of acetylcholine such as lecithin. But, as my noble friend Lady Finlay, has said, subsequent research demonstrated clearly that it was better to use drugs that blocked cholinesterase in order to allow the acetylcholine in the brain to persist for longer.
A generation of drugs, approved and recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, treats the disease in that way. One of those, donepezil, whose trade name is Aricept, has been shown in certain trials to help 30 to 40 per cent of patients with early Alzheimer's disease. There is evidence that sometimes it may even delay patients' need for long-term residential care for 18 months or so. It has therefore been very helpful. However, the problem is that the reduction in acetylcholine in the brain is not a primary cause of the disease; it is an epiphenomenon, so in a sense those drugs treat only the symptoms.
Pilot studies have been used in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease to test a series of things, such as oestrogens, vitamin E as an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory agents. Even more recently, there has been a suggestion that statins, which reduce the blood cholesterol, may have a beneficial effect. But larger trials of those types of treatment have proved on the whole to be ineffective.

1303
A year or two ago, in the United States, a company called Elan Pharmaceuticals worked with transgenic mice that developed in their brains beta amyloid plaques, which are senile plaques identical to those seen in the examination of the brains of patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease. There is now clear evidence that the accumulation of beta amyloid in those plaques seems to be the primary cause of the degeneration that occurs in such patients. The company took beta amyloid peptide and mixed it with a substance known to stimulate the immune system. That was a kind of immunisation or vaccination against the Alzheimer phenomenon. In injecting that type of substance into the mice, researchers found a striking reduction in the number of amyloid plaques in their brains and considerable improvement in their memory tests, which were designed by animal psychologists.
Other research teams in St Louis and at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore have also found evidence that antibody therapy can effectively slow the deposition of beta amyloid or even remove it from the brain. That is all extremely helpful. However, in 2002, preliminary trials in human subjects with Alzheimer's disease had to be terminated because of inflammatory complications that were, in certain instances, serious. But expectation remains high in the research community and in the National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health—the NIH—in the United States that the immunisation approach may yet produce effective treatment for Alzheimer's disease. We are certainly learning more and more about the metabolism of the amyloid precursor protein and beta amyloid. There is every likelihood that the result of that and other research will improve the diagnostic tools that we have and should allow us to develop treatments for Alzheimer's disease.
This is an extremely encouraging field. I have not concentrated on care, but I must say in passing that, when I lived in Burford in the Cotswolds, there was an organisation called SPECAL, which was a joint initiative taken by the Alzheimer's Society, local social services and the NHS, through its primary care trust, which produced outstanding day care services for patients with Alzheimer's disease. I believe that that model has been copied in other parts of the country, and it makes a major contribution to care. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, will not therefore be surprised when, after talking about the research in the United States, I say to him that I hope that we will see a considerable development of research in the United Kingdom. I echo the views expressed by many other speakers about the crucial importance of the long-term care of patients in the terminal stages of the disease, medically and socially, in relieving the sometimes intolerable burden on the families and carers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and others have said.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, for initiating this debate. It has been remarkable in many ways, and
1304
there have been outstanding contributions, not least that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry. His speech was moving and insightful, and it will stay with many of us who heard it for a long time. I welcome him warmly and look forward to his contributions in your Lordships' House.
Among all those distinguished contributions, it is important to start with the growing consciousness in society of the existence of Alzheimer's disease. It came home to me in the past few weeks. In the past six weeks, the world of football has lost Bob Stokoe and Ally MacLeod, both distinguished in their field and in their country, to dementia-related illness. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, as a Scot, that perhaps one of the biggest losses in the past few weeks has been the comedian Rikki Fulton, a man beloved by all Scots for his outstanding ability to provide a comic take on our lives with his wonderful characters—the Reverend I M Jolly lives in the heart of most Scots people. Rikki died about four weeks ago, having had Alzheimer's for the past couple of years. We miss him.
Other speakers talked about the incidence of dementia in a population that, for good reasons, is becoming more long-lived. One of the many consequences is that the population of those who have dementia and those who care for them is becoming increasingly diverse. That too is interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, spoke eloquently about the black and ethnic communities, in which dementia is becoming a significant issue for the first time. He pointed strongly to the need for carers from this country and this culture to begin to learn about the cultural differences, so that care for such people is of a sufficiently high standard.
I take the opportunity to congratulate the Alzheimer's Society's lesbian and gay carers' project on securing funding from Comic Relief to enable it to run a helpline and develop support systems for carers and training for professionals. Your Lordships should think about what it would be like to be a carer and go through all the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, talked about but not to be recognised and to be treated as somebody's brother or a distant relative of the person for whom you care. That must cause double hurt and trauma.
Perhaps inevitably, today's debate will focus our minds on the practicalities of caring, but I want to say quite strongly something that nobody else, I think, has focused on: dementia is not an inevitable part of ageing. We must never allow people to think so. For those for whom it is part of ageing, the biggest problem by far is gaining access to appropriate and timely care. The Government's policy on the funding of personal care and of continuing NHS care, which has been talked about by several speakers, has unintended consequences that are quite harmful to the care offered to people and to the carers. The current policy on the funding of care that takes place in hospital is dangerous. Those of us who sat through proceedings on the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill heard repeatedly from Ministers that hospitals were dangerous places for older people. They are full of

1305
infections such as MRSA, and we know that people with dementia are particularly susceptible to such infections.
Furthermore, it may be that, for many people, care is better when it is delivered in other settings. The right reverend Prelate talked a lot about care in care homes and the added dimensions to that. I heard recently about some research being conducted at the University of Kent that shows that, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, told us, it is possible to detect different chemical reactions in people's bodies. I cannot begin to use the terminology that the noble Lord used, but the research in Canterbury showed that singing brought about responses in people that were detectable in the chemicals in their body. I am certain that the right reverend Prelate is right: singing hymns has a beneficial effect. However, hospitals are not the place to do it, and busy nursing staff cannot go to such a level of detail.
The ombudsman has ruled that the NHS continuing care criteria and the way in which they are selectively and restrictively applied throughout the country are having a detrimental effect on carers. The department has consistently said that it has no plans to alter the guidance that it issues to strategic health authorities; yet, we had another demonstration in the past few weeks of how confusing the guidance is. How many ombudsman's reports must there be, before we get clear guidance from the department about NHS continuing care rulings? How many carers are having their case reassessed? Welcome as those re-assessments are, there is still a lack of clarity about eligibility. Will the reassessments be completed by March 2004? Will the many cases of people who live at home and wish to be cared for at home be fully funded, as a consequence of the ombudsman's ruling that care that takes place at home can be? Can the Minister also say how many strategic health authorities will have their criteria and assessment tools changed in accordance with the new standards as set out by the ombudsman by April 2004, as they are supposed to do?
I am extremely pleased with one particular part of the ombudsman's ruling; namely, that the psychological needs of people with Alzheimer's should be taken into account. That is something which has been wholly overlooked in the past. It hit home with me when a young man that I know of developed dementia at a very young age. He had been a psychiatric nurse and had nursed people with dementia. His wife wanted to care for him at home during the day. The professionals insisted that he should go to a day centre, which was on the second floor of a hospital block. The man used to walk around all day screaming. It was not until he opened a window and climbed down a drainpipe that the staff finally got the message that he wanted to be at home. He did not want to be there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, is right. Professionals should receive training to understand that the needs of carers can be the same as—not in
1306
opposition to—the needs of those for whom they care. That is fundamental to good care and care that helps the psychological well being of those concerned.
Finally, there is much in our residential care sector that is good and should be encouraged. As we know, there is also residential and nursing care that is of an unacceptably low level. I point noble Lords to the work done by my honourable friend in another place, Mr Paul Burstow, about the over-prescription of neuroleptic drugs in order to keep older people with challenging behaviour quiet rather than to address the causes of their distress.
But most care home owners are extremely good and care for the people that live with them. Many care home owners have residents who are of much greater levels of dependency than their homes are registered for. That is for a very benign reason: that place is that person's home. The owners do not want them to move, nor do the people want to move. We should recognise that the number of dementia care places that there are in reality is well in excess of those in the statistics. They are just not recognised as such.
We ought to move towards a situation where we are not trying to fit people with Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia into increasingly scarce care places. I believe that we ought to train not just specialist mental health staff, but all staff—dentists, podiatrists, community nurses—working in the community, who enable carers and people with Alzheimer's to continue living in the community to do so. It is time that dementia care stopped being such a rarefied speciality and became a more general part of general medicine and community medicine.
The recent ombudsman's ruling takes away yet another of the straws that is holding up the Government's policy on NHS continuing care and personal care. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, is right. Until such time as the questions of good nursing care, who funds it and where are sorted out, people with Alzheimer's and their carers will continue living lives full of unnecessary uncertainty and sometimes unnecessary cruelty from a system that really should care for them much better.
7.24 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I often feel that the essence of a good debate is that those who participate should come away at the end feeling enlightened by the contributions of others and hopeful that the occasion may in some small way at least prove a force for good. I believe that we may say just that about the debate today, which I, for one, have found immensely informative and valuable. Our thanks are certainly due to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, for introducing the debate so ably, and for the many excellent contributions that followed, not least, the most uplifting speech made by the right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Coventry.
The language of 21st century healthcare is the language of choice and of patient empowerment. Those who are afflicted with dementia or Alzheimer's progress to a state in which personal empowerment is

1307
meaningless, which is why the test of good care for dementia patients is surely the degree to which they benefit from those things that we imagine they would have chosen for themselves had they been able to do so, perhaps the chief of which, at a human level, is simple kindness.
In terms of policy making, governments and societies are to be judged by the way that they look after those least able to look after themselves. It is that overarching thought that should, I suggest. guide us as we approach the subject of this debate. Whatever the numbers involved, the principle is the same. But the numbers are nevertheless sobering—750,000 people in the UK suffer from dementia, including one in five people over the age of 80. Unfortunately, those numbers will not get any smaller. We are looking, therefore, at a major area of health and social care policy.
Yet, despite that, if I, as a close relative of someone with dementia, wish to try to exercise choice on behalf of that person, I will find that the dice are loaded against me in a whole variety of ways. To echo the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for a start, without the mental incapacity legislation that the Government have promised, I can have no legal right to take any decision on behalf of my relation or even to be consulted about such decisions. In practice, of course, it is likely that I would be consulted. But what about an elderly person with no close family? We can see how important it is that someone in that position should be given the opportunity to appoint an advocate for them—a carer or, perhaps, a friend.
The significance of giving someone the legal right to represent you when you are no longer capable of taking decisions for yourself is perhaps most obvious when it comes to making a choice about the right care setting. The Alzheimer's Disease Society tell us that the type of care and support provided to a patient with dementia can have a huge impact on his or her quality of life. For those who need a residential setting, with staff who are properly trained in the care of dementia, the choice is in truth extremely limited. Although as many as three-quarters of all people in long-term care have dementia, only about 10 per cent of care staff will have any training in it.
A survey of residential and nursing homes three years ago found that not a single home surveyed showed even a fair standard of care for people with dementia. As I understand it, the official rule is that only homes registered to do so can accept residents with Alzheimer's, although one must suspect that this may he a rule honoured more in the breach than in the observance. It is no surprise that many people face a long delay in accessing a suitable care home or else are forced to move to one which is a long way from their closest family. As I researched for this debate, I found myself in increasing sympathy with the position taken by the Alzheimer's Disease Society, and echoed in large measure by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel; that national minimum standards for care homes need to evolve to include requirements for training which focus directly on the needs of individual groups of patients.
1308
The avoidable disaster that has taken place over the seven years of the present Government is what has happened to the care home industry. At a time when demand for residential care is growing, we have seen a contraction of 70,000 in the number of care home beds since 1997, equivalent to 13 per cent of capacity. Of course the situation is not the same in all areas of the country, as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, reminded us. But the south of England has been particularly hard hit.
The closure of care homes is not attributable to a single cause, but there is absolutely no doubt that the over-prescriptive nature of the original set of national minimum standards introduced under the Care Standards Act 2000 forced closure on to many homes whose owners realised that they could not or could not afford to undertake the kinds of building alterations which the standards looked likely to impose on them. In the event, the Government performed a U-turn on some of the most prescriptive of the standards for existing homes, exempting existing care homes from their scope, something for which I for one had been arguing consistently, but that was not before many hundreds of care home owners had taken fright and closed down.
All of us are in favour of higher standards—how could we not be?—but the risk that you run by adopting a tape-measure approach to standard setting is that you lose sight of the things that really matter to an elderly person. That is the quality of care—in other words, the intangible quality of "TLC" that they receive. If the result of standard setting is the forced closure of homes, I am afraid there can be only one consequence, which is that vulnerable residents will find their lives disrupted. In some cases that disruption is enough to precipitate death, a danger that the Government have themselves recognised.
I hope and believe that the care home sector has now stabilised, but clearly there is much more to do. If you look at the number of care home places per 100 people over the age of 65, the average across the country is 5.7. However, in the northern home counties, including my own, Buckinghamshire, the supply ratio is 4.6, while in London it is 3.8—a dangerously low level and a full one-third lower than the national average. The alarming prediction at present is that overall demand for care home places will outstrip supply by next year.
So, even in a matter like the choice of a care home, the dice are loaded against the dementia patient. But the dice are similarly loaded when it comes, as we have heard, to a patient's entitlement to free care. The Coughlan judgment, which gave rise to the Department of Health guidance of 1999, appeared at the time to signal the beginning of greater clarity on the question of who was eligible for free nursing care in nursing homes, particularly in relation to the chronically ill. What we found, though, was that some local authorities were misinterpreting the Department of Health guidance so as to deny free nursing care to those who were apparently entitled to it. A year ago the health service ombudsman reported precisely to that effect.

1309
Last month the ombudsman reported again on the case of Malcolm Pointon, a man with Alzheimer's disease whose care at home the local PCT had refused to fund fully. She agreed that Mr Pointon's case should have been classed as NHS continuing care and said that in making a decision of this kind a person's psychological needs should be recognised. There is an obvious message here for residential homes as well as dementia patients looked after at home, and I think we must ask the Government whether the misapplication of the DoH guidelines which gave rise to the Pointon case, as well as others, is something that they will now look into. I am in no doubt that some local authorities have moved heaven and earth to avoid their financial responsibilities towards dementia patients. My noble friend Lady Chalker has spoken to me about one particularly appalling case in Southend-on-Sea of a sectioned man whose need for residential nursing care has been emphatically confirmed by a mental health review tribunal, but who is being denied that care by the local authority.
It is the view of the Alzheimer's Society that people with dementia are effectively being discriminated against by the NHS because few sufferers meet the NHS continuing care criteria as set by the Coughlan judgment. What is certainly true is that the postcode lottery is alive and kicking in this area. Standard 2 of the National Service Framework for Older People, which called for a single, nationwide assessment process to decide who is eligible for free NHS continuing care, has been with us for almost two years, but the Alzheimer's Society is no less worried than before that the assessment process varies according to where you live.
The difficulty in many areas is what is commonly known as "system bias". The ombudsman stated in her earlier report that the distinction between nursing care and social care can easily become blurred. In particular there is an increasing trend for nurses to provide services that would previously have been offered only by doctors, and for care assistants to take on roles previously reserved for registered nurses. Care provided by care assistants does not at present qualify for free NHS continuing care. A decade ago, similar care might have had to be offered by registered nurses.
There is some evidence that this system bias has led to an increasing proportion of the elderly paying for their residential care. Since 1997 the number of older people paying their own fees has increased by 20 per cent. Personally, I do not think that there should be any argument. Care provided by trained care staff who specialise in providing nursing care to dementia sufferers should qualify as nursing care. To do anything else looks like splitting hairs simply in order to shield the taxpayer.
I have not mentioned medication, but I hope that the Minister will say something when he comes to speak about the postcode lottery that continues in the prescribing of Aricept, Exelon and Reminyl, and the critical need for early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease to enable these drugs to be used to maximum advantage. The same applies to the newer drug, Ebixa,
1310
which is licensed for moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease. There is an unacceptable variation across the country in the availability of these treatments which, I believe, only the appointment of more specialists is likely to ameliorate.
Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to the work of carers, which is always difficult, usually unsung and unremunerated, and which enables thousands of dementia sufferers to remain looked after in their own homes, sometimes for many years. It is in that context especially that the value of the licensed anti-dementia drugs is most keenly felt.
As we work towards higher standards, the empowerment of patients and carers, better treatments and better training, I hope that the ideal for the care of these most vulnerable individuals articulated by all speakers in this debate is indeed within our grasp.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, along with other noble Lords I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, for giving us an opportunity to discuss this important topic. I am grateful too for his recognition of the increased investment into care of the elderly that the Government have made. I join him and others in paying tribute to the work of the Alzheimer's Society. In fact, its new chief executive used to work for me, which may totally destroy his public reputation, of course.
I also pay tribute to the moving and thoughtful maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry. We look forward to his further contributions in this House. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the debate has been informative and a force for good.
As noble Lords have said, there are probably around 700,000 people in the United Kingdom with dementia requiring care and support. By 2050, that number will have grown to around 1.2 million. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, illustrated the incentive this provides all of us to try to reduce the growth in that rate and its impact on services. Although in many instances support comes from family and friends—I shall return to that later—a great deal is provided by the statutory and voluntary sectors.
The first point I should like to address is one that was raised by a number of noble Lords concerning the capacity of the care home sector. The Laing & Buisson Care of Elderly People market survey, published in July 2003, put the national bed capacity in care homes from all sectors at 470,000, with demand estimated to be around 460,000. The survey also indicated that homes are closing at a slower rate than in either of the previous two years. We accept, as a number of noble Lords pointed out, that there are parts of the country where homes have closed in such numbers that a person's choice of care home is severely limited, and that there are local shortages and problems to be addressed. But I do not believe that this is a national crisis.

1311
Estimates of the number of people with dementia in care homes arc, we acknowledge, as high as two-thirds. That is why many councils have increased, or are looking to increase, their commissioning of specialist provision for people with dementia.
A number of noble Lords have raised issues in regard to medication. Although the care of older people relies on a complex arrangement of services across a range of settings, of particular importance to the treatment of those with dementia is the use of medication. The treatment of those with behavioural problems requires very careful consideration and planning. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, have reminded us, the disease classifications in this area can be extremely difficult.
Concern has been expressed in the past about inappropriate and over-prescribing of new atypical antipsychotic drugs for people with dementia, especially those older people in care homes. These new drugs can be an effective way of managing a range of conditions. However, it is important that they are used appropriately and as part of a wider package of care that, where possible, includes non-pharmacological interventions.
Yesterday, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines recommended that the use of two atypical antipsychotic drugs—Risperidone and Olanzapine—be avoided in the treatment of patients with dementia because of an increased risk of strokes. These drugs are not licensed for the treatment of patients with dementia. I hope this will be seen as an opportunity for local clinicians and care managers to look again at the range of treatments available for treating those with dementia, with a view to ensuring that the most appropriate and beneficial services are delivered.
The pharmacological treatment of dementia has been the subject of work conducted by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and other noble Lords have said. NICE has already produced guidelines on the use of anti-dementia drugs and is currently in the process of producing further guidance on all aspects of treating patients with dementia.
I acknowledge to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that there have been variations in implementing NICE guidance but, as I have said in public before, we are on the case in this area; improvements are being made; and all SHAs are trying to monitor the progress made by PCTs in the application of NICE guidance.
Turning to the planning and performance management of the system, the development of the right services, in the right place and at the right time, is important if those with dementia are to get the care they need. Central to service improvement is the National Service Framework for Older People, launched three years ago. It is important to emphasise that this framework is a 10-year plan—it is not a two-year or three-year plan but a 10-year plan—and it contains a standard dedicated to the improvement of mental health services for older people.
1312
The Priorities and Planning Framework for 2003–06 requires protocols to be in place across all health and social care systems by April 2004 to develop and provide integrated services for the care and management of older people with mental health problems. New performance indicators are being established to measure progress and the Commission for Health Audit and Inspection will this year complete an inspection of these services as part of the wider National Service Framework for Older People inspection.
I turn to the issue of research, to which a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Greengross, referred. I agree that we have to do all we can to support research in this area. During the past few years, the Government have organised nearly £40 million of research on dementia via the Medical Research Council and the NHS Policy Research Programme. We need to be optimistic about this research investment, as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and others have indicated.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for her information about the cognitive vitality of the benefits of bingo. I shall certainly pass on this information to my 87 year-old mother, who is an avid fan.
I turn now to the workforce issues, which have been raised by a number of noble Lords. Having the best services in place for people with dementia relies on an appropriate workforce. I recognise that there is a journey to travel in this area, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned. The department has convened an Older People Care Group workforce team to consider anew the workforce and training needs of those working with older people. This approach brings together a wide range of people. The workforce team has also established a subgroup to look particularly at dementia services.
We need more flexibility and there is much to be done, as a number of noble Lords have suggested, but there are some gleams of light such as the Croydon memory service, which is a one-stop shop for people of different ages with memory problems. Assessments can be done either by health or social workers and there is good access for people from ethnic minority backgrounds.
A number of noble Lords touched on the issue of carers. But professional care and support in this country is only one side of the coin. The majority of people with dementia are cared for at home, which can be a very demanding and exhausting task for their carers. I share the concern of all noble Lords that we recognise the contribution and altruism of carers and what they do in very difficult circumstances.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, mentioned, the Government have done more to recognise the contribution and concerns of carers. We developed the national carers strategy in 1999 with carers and the organisations which represent them. I should like to pay tribute to the work that my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley has contributed to the area of carers over a long period of time.

1313
A carers grant was introduced in 1999 to support councils in providing breaks and services for carers in England. The grant has been increased annually and has provided an extra £225 million over the past four years. It is worth £100 million this year and by 2005–06 it will be £185 million, helping an additional 130,000 carers. Councils will be able to use the money to give carers help with taking a break from caring and also to give them ongoing support with caring.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of personal care. All the initiatives we are taking to improve services for those with dementia and their carers are based on making services more person centred, and we believe that better choice and better services are beginning to be provided. It is worth quoting here from the National Service Framework for Older People in Standard Two:
"Older people and their carers should receive person-centred care and services which respect them as individuals and which are arranged around their needs".
It should,
"recognise individual differences and specific needs … including cultural and religious differences".
I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and the right reverend Prelate to some extent, but I recognise that we need to do more to make services accessible to ethnic minority older people.
As to the issue of race equality schemes, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, we have launched a 10-point plan to ensure that black and ethnic minority groups are equally represented at all levels of the NHS. Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, is chairing the group that will be working on this issue.
Many, including the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, feel that to offer truly person-centred services we must make all personal care free. We respect those views, but the Government have taken a different view and do not accept that this is a flaw at the heart of their policy. In their response to the Royal Commission on Long Term Care, which was chaired in such a distinguished manner by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and which formed part of the NHS Plan, the Government stressed that free personal care for everyone would be costly, would not be guaranteed to lead to service improvements and would not help the poorest members of society.
Making personal care free for everyone carries a substantial cost, both now and in the future. It would consume most of the additional resources being made available for older people. We believe that the funding available should be used to help promote the independence of all older people. Free personal care for all would not achieve this. It would be difficult to distinguish between elderly people with different conditions.
At the moment, seven out of 10 older care home residents already have some or all of their personal care costs paid by their local council. If all additional money for older people were to be used to provide
1314
personal care to the rest of the older population, the frailer and poorer members of society—those in most need—would not benefit.
In July 2002, the then Secretary of State for Health, Alan Milburn, announced a wide-ranging package of measures radically to reform services for older people. By 2006, compared with the resources available today, another £1 billion a year will be spent on social services for older people. The package focuses on six main themes: faster assessment; stabilising the care home sector, which I have talked about; expanding the range of services; easier access to free community equipment; increased choices for older people; and more support for carers. All these services are of great relevance to older people with dementia.
With regard to intermediate care, this will build on the development of intermediate care services, heralded in the NHS Plan and funded to the tune of £900 million. Intermediate care is crucial to the care of all older people as it promotes care close to one's home in one's home, wherever possible. Hospitalisation for older people can lead to institutionalisation, and loss of independence and dignity. Older people prefer to be cared for at home. We aim to ensure through the initiatives outlined that they are able to exercise this choice.
A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raised issues relating to ombudsman cases. The noble Baroness asked about progress on continuing care, and the pros and cons of guidance following the Health Service Ombudsman's judgment in the Coughlan case. Since publication of the report in February 2003, good progress has been made in investigating cases in which people may have been wrongly denied continuing care in the past.
I reiterate that the care people with Alzheimer's or any other condition receive from social services or the NHS should be determined by the assessed needs of each individual. That has consistently been the Government's policy. It is not, therefore, possible to say that in all cases, in any particular setting, all care will be provided either by the NHS or social services. However, the existing guidance, issued in the summer of 2001 in response to the Coughlan judgment, made it clear that,
"the setting of care should not be the sole or main determinant of eligibility. Continuing NHS health care does not have to be provided in an NHS hospital and could be provided in a nursing home, hospice, or the individual's own home".
It seems clear that continuing care may be provided in the home.
The same guidance also discusses the various aspects of eligibility criteria, including that,
"the individual has a rapidly deteriorating or unstable medical, physical or mental health condition"
and may require support from the NHS. Again, the guidance seems to cover the issue the noble Baroness raised.
On current activity in response to that ombudsman's report, all SHAs—strategic health authorities—are fully engaged in investigating cases of possible recompense brought to their attention.

1315
Strategic health authorities are expecting to complete the majority of cases and the changes needed by the end of the March 2004 deadline. All 28 strategic health authorities agreed new criteria for continuing care last autumn.
There is also a current review of continuing care in progress across nine strategic health authorities. We will consider new guidance in the light of that review.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, alluded to the recent ombudsman case involving Mr Pointon. I do not want to comment in detail on this particular case in Cambridgeshire, but it has been referred to as a test case. However, it is a decision of the ombudsman in relation to the care of one individual. The ombudsman has said, very helpfully, and has been at pains to make it clear, that it is an individual case. In these cases, each individual should receive care following appropriate assessment, with services shaped around the needs of the individual, as the recent White Paper on choice and responsiveness in the NHS emphasised. That was the finding of the ombudsman, and that is what we are trying to ensure applies in these sorts of cases.
We have also required all strategic health authorities to agree new eligibility criteria for continuing care which, as I have said, they have done.
The noble Earl also mentioned the mental incapacity Bill. The Department for Constitutional Affairs has the lead on this; the draft Bill was published in the summer of 2003, and a report of the Joint Scrutiny Committee has, I believe, just been published.
In conclusion, let me say that older people with dementia need and deserve better services. The Government have set in place a number of initiatives to try to ensure that that happens. More money than ever before is being invested in older people's services. As well as the additional funding for intermediate care services and the extra £1 billion a year for social services by 2006 already mentioned, older people will benefit from the record allocations to primary care trusts announced in December 2002: £148.3 billion for 2003–04 to 2005–06—a cash increase of more than 30 per cent in the total allocation. A very considerable proportion of that will go to services for older people.
Many good local services are now developing, but we are not complacent. We must ensure that the personal needs and choices of older people and their carers are central to the services they receive, that they are able to play as full a part as possible in society and that they have their dignity and cultural differences respected and their independence protected as much as possible.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for his comprehensive reply to the matters raised in the debate. It seemed to me a reply characterised by two things, the first being a sense of engagement with reality. These are very complex issues, and that came through in the way in which he responded to the points we raised. Secondly,
1316
as a response, I am happy to say that it left me room to continue to disagree with the Government on one or two issues, and I appreciate that too.
I thank all those who took part in the debate. It is always a revelation, in a debate such as this, to see the cornucopia of cumulative wisdom and experience in this House that appears when the topic is raised and the button is pressed. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry on a very finely targeted and clearly focused maiden speech. We look forward to his further contributions to debate.
I am tempted to invite your Lordships to join me in a game of bingo, but I shall not. Instead, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill [H.L.]
7.57 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time.
The Bill enables a competent adult, who is suffering unbearably as a result of a terminal illness, to receive medical help to die, at his own considered and persistent request.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide an option for terminal patients who are suffering unbearably to bring an end to their suffering at a time of their choosing, in a way which will not place vulnerable members of society at risk, nor compel doctors or other members of medical teams to participate in processes to which they have conscientious objections.
Although more limited in its scope, the Bill is substantially the same as the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill which had its Second Reading on 6 June last year. There are, however, three significant changes to that Bill, made in response to concerns which had been expressed on Second Reading.
First, the Bill is now limited in its application to terminally ill patients. Secondly, in assisting the patient to die, the attending physician may only provide the patient with the means to end the patient's life unless the patient is physically unable to do so, in which event he can actively end the patient's life. Thirdly, an additional safeguard has been included. requiring a specialist in palliative care to attend the patient to discuss the option of palliative care.
As the House has authorised the setting up of a Select Committee to consider the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who led the opposition to the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill last year, have consulted others who spoke against the Bill and have agreed that there is no purpose in taking up the time of the House on a lengthy Second Reading that would largely be a repetition of the lengthy debate of 6 June last year. They have accordingly decided not to oppose the Second Reading, on the clear understanding that the decision is made solely for the convenience of the

1317
House and is in no way to be considered as an endorsement of the Bill. I have further been given an undertaking by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society that it will not seek to present that decision in any way as a victory for the Bill, and, naturally, I have given a similar undertaking myself.
In view of those facts, I shall not detain the House any longer, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Joffe)
8 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, on a Friday last June, as the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, has just mentioned, many of us gathered in your Lordships' House for what must rank as one of the longest Second Reading debates in recent years, starting as it did at 11 a.m. and not finishing until just before 7 p.m. It was a memorable debate with many distinguished contributions. By a small margin, a majority of Peers spoke against the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill, as it was then known, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe.
Although there are some modifications in the Bill before your Lordships' House tonight, the objections that I and others raised to the earlier Bill remain valid in relation to the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. My noble friends Lady Masham and Lady Knight of Collingtree have particularly asked me to associate them with the continuing objections to the proposals. The medical and ethical objections raised by the Select Committee on Medical Ethics, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who is present tonight, also remain valid, as does the opposition of those involved in palliative care, along with the British Medical Association and the Royal Colleges. Yesterday the BMA issued a powerful and cogent new statement, reiterating its strong opposition to this Bill.
However, I also recognise that on 14 January this year, your Lordships' House voted to approve the report of the Liaison Committee and, in particular, its recommendation that an ad hoc Select Committee upon my noble friend's Bill be appointed. Therefore, whether as a draft Bill or as one with a Second Reading, the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill will in due course be the subject of a Select Committee of this House. Distasteful as my colleagues and I might find that, it is the reality that we face. Little would therefore be gained by reiterating the points made in the Second Reading debate last June. There may well come a time when we shall have to divide on this question, but that should obviously happen after the Select Committee has deliberated, not before.
The Select Committee at least gives us the opportunity to deal with this issue once and for all. I hope that its deliberations will clearly demonstrate that there is no consensus in support of legislative change and that, without such consensus, legalised euthanasia will not be sanctioned by the British Parliament.
1318
In common with many Members of your Lordships' House, I remain resolutely opposed to euthanasia and physician assisted suicide and believe that the consequences of the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, would be disastrous for the terminally ill, for the elderly, for disabled people, for the medical profession and for wider society. I am confident that when your Lordships have received evidence from patients, from disability rights campaigners, from palliative care specialists and from those who have witnessed the disastrous effects of legalised euthanasia in the Netherlands and elsewhere, the House will vote resoundingly to reject the Bill.
In conclusion, this is an issue to be resolved not by parliamentary tactics but by rigorous argument and honest debate. Therefore, the brevity of tonight's proceedings should not be mistaken for a lack of determination to scrutinise thoroughly and to oppose this Bill.
8.4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, in the Second Reading of the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, on 6 June last year, I set out a range of reasons why I opposed the Bill. I believe that the reasons that I set out then are as valid for the revised Bill that comes before your Lordships now, but I shall not repeat those arguments because of the agreement made between the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, and the usual channels that we should be very brief indeed.
I understand that there is to be a Select Committee, and I am very glad to understand from the usual channels that they are very sympathetic to the idea of a bishop being a member of that Select Committee. When the matter comes before your Lordships' House, I hope that it will meet with your sympathy and agreement.
It is in some ways rather surprising that there should be a new Select Committee, given that there was a very thorough one in 1994. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, set forth his reasons in a background note that appeared in Hansard in January. One reason that he set out there for changes that have happened since 1994 was that some of the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who were members of the original committee have in fact changed their minds. Those noble Baronesses included Lady Jay, Lady Warnock and Lady Flather. However, I hope that, when the Select Committee begins to meet, it will realise that there are members of that original committee who have not changed their minds. I see the noble Lord, Lord Walton, shaking his head in agreement. I have particularly in mind the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, the then Archbishop of York, who made a very decisive contribution to that earlier Select Committee, who has not changed his mind. I hope that the Select Committee will not only ask for written evidence from people like that but will also call them for oral hearings.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I very much hope that groups that it is very easy to overlook, such as the Disability Rights Commission, will be called to give

1319
evidence. The commission believes that the Bill, however finely tuned—and respect must be paid to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for trying to get the Bill very precisely and finely tuned—seriously disadvantages disabled people. I hope, too, that the Select Committee will gather what evidence it can about the extent and quality of palliative care, which is clearly crucial to the whole issue. It is fortuitous that there is a House of Commons Health Committee inquiry into palliative care happening at the moment, to which the Church of England has contributed. That committee's findings should prove very useful to the Select Committee; it might want to make some recommendations about palliative care.
In the submission given by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, in January, he rightly suggested that the medical profession needed to be consulted. So, too, do the Churches—and, I suggest, the other faith communities. When I had the privilege of chairing a committee of your Lordships' House on stem cell research, it was very good to get views from Muslims and Jews. In a way, I should have liked to hear from more Muslims and Jews, as we live in a multi-faith society. Their views will be very crucial indeed.
As far as concerns the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches, the small group of Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops that put in a joint contribution to the original committee said:
"Neither of our churches insists that a dying or seriously ill person should be kept alive by all possible means for as long as possible. On the other hand, we do not believe the right to personal autonomy is absolute".
That is the final point that I would like the Select Committee to address. It includes some fundamental questions about what it is to be a human being. It might be suggested that human beings cannot simply be defined by their autonomy, by their capacity to make free, unfettered choices. We are born dependent on others and we die dependent on others. Our dependence is just as much a characteristic of what it is to be a person as our capacity to make free choices. I very much hope that the Select Committee will not just consider the evidence of what is happening in Oregon or the Netherlands, but will address fundamental questions of what it is to be a person.
Finally, the Orkney poet, Edwin Muir, wrote a very moving poem called One Foot in Eden, contrasting life in paradise with life in the world as we know it. He ended that poem by saying:
"Blossoms of grief and charity
Bloom in these darkened fields alone.…
Strange blessings never in paradise
Fall from these beclouded skies".
For me, that poem has always hinted at and pointed to some fundamental truths about what it is to be a human being, particularly when the clouds are particularly dark or beclouded.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, when the predecessor of this Bill, the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill, was debated in your Lordships House on 6 June last year, I had the opportunity to set out clearly what
1320
was my attitude. In my considered judgment it reflected the attitude of a large majority of my community. I refer your Lordships to cols. 1644 to 1646 of the Official Report. Hence, it is not my intention to reiterate each of those arguments but simply to indicate that I am equally opposed to this new Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill.
I will, however, make a few brief points at this stage. It has become the accepted reality in the United Kingdom that state executions of murderers, rather than deterring them, brutalise society. For that reason, and also for religious reasons, I voted for the abolition of the death penalty, as did a large majority of our legislators. I do not think that I need to ask your Lordships how can we, as a society, reconcile that position with one where, only yesterday, the British Medical Association posed the case that:
"If assisted suicide were to be an available option, there would inevitably be pressure for all seriously ill people to consider it even if they would not otherwise entertain such an idea;
"Health professionals explaining all options for the management of terminal illness would have to include mention of assisted suicide. Patients might choose it for the wrong reasons. They might feel obliged to choose that option if they feel themselves to be burdensome to others or concerned, for example, about financial implications for their families of a long terminal illness".
My second point, also based on the British Medical Association opinion, is to ask whether the state has the right to legislate to alter the fundamental ethos of the medical profession. The BMA says:
"Legalised assisted suicide would affect patients' ability to trust their doctors and to trust medical advice;
"In particular, it could undermine the trust that vulnerable, elderly, disabled or very ill patients have in the health care system".
I wonder which doctor would be more trusted, one who had opted in to facilitating assisted dying or one who had opted out?
The BMA recognises what it calls the matter of enabling individuals,
"to achieve their personal goals",
but concludes:
"We believe that in the case of euthanasia and assisted suicide, benefit for an individual in terms of having their wishes respected, is only achievable at too high a cost in terms of potential harm to society at large".
Finally, I draw attention to the BMA's scepticism regarding the proposition in this Bill that there needs to be legal provision for pain relief. The BMA states that that assumption is inaccurate and,
"plays on unjustified public fears about the possibility of intolerable or unrelieved pain at the end of life. In fact the law and ethical position is already clear on the rights of patients to receive the most effective pain relief available".
I believe that that aspect of the Bill is cynical and tilts at windmills. It seeks unnecessarily and unjustifiably to play on the emotion of the most vulnerable—the elderly and the sick and dying. That must be resisted. That is both my experience and my conviction. That is why I oppose the Bill and why I hope the Select Committee will concur not only with my opinion but with that of the British Medical Association and the Royal Colleges.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House any longer than is necessary to confirm that there is little to be gained by reiterating the points made in the Second Reading debate, on 6 June 2003, on the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill which was promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe.
The Bill before us is changed in detail from that previously debated, but the principles remain unchanged. However, in the light of the House's decision to establish a Select Committee of inquiry after this Bill's Second Reading, that process of in-depth inquiry is to be supported. I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Joffe, for his letter stating, as he has reiterated today, that the action of the opponents of the Bill in agreeing to no debate and no vote must not in any way be interpreted as representing a victory or endorsement of the Bill.
The points of objection made in the debate on 6 June 2003 remain, in my view, valid in relation to the Bill before us. The Select Committee will, I hope, be adequately resourced to undertake this very serious and very important inquiry.
8.16 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the gap, but something was brought to my attention this afternoon that I should like to bring before your Lordships' House. I must also apologise for not having paid attention to the earlier Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill, to which the same question might have applied.
The Scotland Act 1998 devolves all powers to the Scottish Parliament other than those that were reserved under Schedule 5. Schedule 5, Part II contains specific reservations under Head J, which deals with "Health and Medicines". Dying is not mentioned. Therefore, I presume that legislation concerning dying is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
There is a convention, as I understand it, that this Parliament does not consider devolved matters unless it has received notice that the Scottish Parliament has considered the matter and passed a Sewel Motion. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, what steps he has taken to secure a Sewel Motion? If it has not been possible, what steps does he plan to take—or is this convention such that the consideration of this Bill should be held up until such a Motion is forthcoming?
8.18 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, on these Benches, as I believe in most other parts of the House, there are a variety of views on the substance of the Bill. I am fortunate, therefore, that I do not have to try to go through all of them this evening. However, having had personal experience in the past 12 months of the remarkable quality of palliative care provided in this country and particularly within hospices, I should say that I recognise what is being done and I think that the contributions made by those involved are particularly important.
1322
This evening we are faced with the decision that was, as has been said, taken in the House on 14 January. There is a clear view from these Benches that the decision of the House to set up a Select Committee to evaluate the issues underlying the Bill is the correct one. I hope that the Select Committee will also be able to consider the issue of whether the provisions of the Scotland Act require that the Scottish Parliament pass a Sewel Motion before the Bill can be considered at later stages.
It is, of course, inappropriate for anyone who participates in the activities of the usual channels to divulge on the Floor of the House anything that might occur. However, in view of the views stated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, I think that there is a reasonable chance that, next Wednesday, when the Committee of Selection comes to consider the composition of the Select Committee, provision will be made for the inclusion of one of his right reverend colleagues.
For those reasons, we on these Benches this evening—unlike the situation on Monday evening—will be able to support a Motion for the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee after Second Reading.
8.19 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I should simply like to say that I entirely agree with the views set out by the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Maginnis of Drumglass. As a practising doctor, I should like to emphasise that I do not need any new legislation to enable me to relieve the pain of my patients who are suffering. I have been doing it without that for many years, and I hope that I shall do so for many more years to come.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for his explanation of the Bill before us today. It contains some significant differences compared with the previous Bill, which was debated in this House on 6 June last year. That debate was of the highest standard and reflected differing and strongly held views. I am sure that noble Lords are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for reflecting on many of the concerns expressed earlier in his changes to the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, will understand, as I do, the strength of feeling held on this issue; the differences of opinion and belief, and where those differences derive from. The public debate on this, both here and in other countries, reveals the many strands of human belief about how we as human beings should handle the end of life. This House has made a distinguished contribution to these very human debates: in 1994 the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics reported and, more recently in 2003, the House of Lords debated the Patients' Protection Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, and the previous version of the Bill now before us.
As a Private Member's Bill that involves issues of conscience, the Government's stance is one of neutrality. We listen carefully to the debates and offer

1323
advice on what we see as key issues and implications in the context of' our present laws. I refer your Lordships to the previous debate in June, when my noble friend Lady Andrews spoke for the Government. Of course, Members of the Government have personal views, but I stand by the comments made by my noble friend following that debate where all shades of opinion were expressed. The Government have no plans to change the current laws on euthanasia and assisted suicide, but welcome and listen closely to the debate.
The Government recognise the complexity of the issues involved and the polarity of views held. Decisions about the end of life are all about our personal values, views and circumstances and provoke strongly held and diverse opinions. I know that some noble Lords are disappointed that we shall not have a substantive debate tonight. However, the gravity of the issues have led to agreement that a Select Committee should be established to consider the Bill. A thorough and balanced consideration of the full range of issues in a Select Committee could therefore be a sensible way forward in informing policy in this area. It might be considered timely given that a decade has elapsed since the previous Select Committee.
The Government will, of course, co-operate fully with the Select Committee and will consider its findings carefully in due course. We look forward to revisiting the issues again, taking into account the position of our colleagues in the devolved administrations.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I express my appreciation to all noble Lords, and in particular to my noble friends Lord Alton and Lady Finlay, for so readily cooperating in order to ensure that this Second Reading should not unnecessarily use up the valuable time of the House.
A number of points have been made with which I profoundly disagree. However, in the spirit of the agreement to which I referred in my opening speech, I shall not respond to them but rather leave them to be considered by the Select Committee.
However, I refer to the specific question asked by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. I must admit to some surprise at the point not having been raised al any time before with me or the House. I gave some consideration to it, and was advised that it would not be a bar. I should mention that, at the same time, a decision was taken that the Bill as it stands specifically excludes reference to Northern Ireland. I am sure that that would interest the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.
I will, however, look further into the matter that the noble Duke raised, but the point will of course be considered by the Select Committee. If necessary, I am sure that that committee will form a view on it: certainly I do not at this stage see it being any bar to the decision of the House to set up a Select Committee.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock.

  Hutton Inquiry
  Hutton Inquiry
  Katharine Gun
  Katharine Gun
  Government Offices for the Regions: Websites
  Government Offices for the Regions: Websites
  National Smartcard Project
  National Smartcard Project
  Sustainable Communities Plan: Cost of Associated Publications
  Sustainable Communities Plan: Cost of Associated Publications
  Homeless People: Government Grants for London
  Homeless People: Government Grants for London
  Freedom of Information Act: Fees Regulations
  Freedom of Information Act: Fees Regulations
  Playing Fields Monitoring Group
  Playing Fields Monitoring Group
  Smoking in Public Places
  Smoking in Public Places
  Food Supplements: European Food Safety Authority
  Food Supplements: European Food Safety Authority
  Speech and Language Therapists: Pay and Grading
  Speech and Language Therapists: Pay and Grading
  NHS: Agenda for Change Implementation
  NHS: Agenda for Change Implementation
  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Treatment Trials
  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Treatment Trials
  Rural Delivery Review
  Rural Delivery Review
  EU Business Regulation: Better Regulation Task Force Report
  EU Business Regulation: Better Regulation Task Force Report

  Equal Pay
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) has made the following Written Statement.
  WS 70
  Along with other government organizations, the DTI and its agencies completed equal pay audits in 2003 and put in place action plans to address any concerns.

  The Cabinet Office produced an overview of audits from across the Civil Service on 27 November 2003 (see http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/civilservice/performanceandreward/performance.html).

  All DTI organisations are already taking steps to deliver on their action plans and will review equal pay as part of future pay rounds.

  Action plans and summaries have now been placed in the Libraries of the House and published on websites (see http://www.dti.gov.uk/about_dti_documents.html).