Sitting of 5 May 2004

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

    Children Bill
    Mr. Martin Caton: What representations he has received from the Children's Commissioner for Wales on the Children Bill. [169181]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): I recently met the Children's Commissioner for Wales to discuss his work and the impact on that work of the Children Bill. I have also met the all-party group on children in Wales. The Bill will provide the basis for further strengthening of local services for children and young people in Wales, giving them the start in life they so richly deserve.
    Mr. Caton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is it not the case that the Welsh commissioner, his opposite numbers in Scotland and Northern Ireland and voluntary organisations working with children in Wales all say that the proposal in the Bill to create an English commissioner with responsibility for non-devolved matters over other parts of the UK is mistaken? Surely, the best way forward for all children in the UK is certainly to have an English commissioner, with responsibility for all children and all policy aspects in England, but to extend the remit of the other commissioners in the UK to cover non-devolved matters.
    Mr. Touhig: The post of Welsh commissioner was set up by the National Assembly in response to the Waterhouse report and to support the Assembly's rights-based strategy for children. The Government's new agenda for children is focused on our key outcome—improving children's lives. The role of the children's commissioner in England was designed with a different agenda in mind, and a key role for the commissioner will be to monitor progress on our priority outcomes for children. As responsibility for non-devolved matters lies at Westminster, it is appropriate that they come under the responsibility of a
    1322
    commissioner who reports to Ministers who answer to this House, so I do not agree with the last part of his question.
    Hywel Williams: Following the extraordinary performance by the Minister for Children yesterday, the question for the hon. Gentleman and for the Secretary of State is clear: do they stand with the Children's Commissioner for Wales, with MPs and AMs from all parties, with non-governmental organisations in Wales and, most important, with children in Wales, or do they back the Minister for Children in her extraordinary attack on the Welsh children's commissioner? The commissioner or the Minister, which is it to be?
    Mr. Touhig: I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister was trying to emphasise the difference in approach to the work of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the work proposed for the children's commissioner for England. As I said in my previous answer, the commissioner in Wales deals with individual cases on a day-to-day basis. I have met him and I know the value of the work that he is doing. In England, the role of the commissioner was designed with a different agenda in mind: to focus on the Government's strategic aims and to monitor progress. We should understand that important difference before we get any deeper into the argument.
    Alan Howarth: Has the Children's Commissioner for Wales, following his important previous report, offered my hon. Friend any further advice, in the context of the Children Bill, on the practicalities of achieving improved multi-agency co-ordination of early and expert care for young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties, to ensure that mental health problems in childhood and adolescence are not carried forward into adult life?
    Mr. Touhig: The Bill will enable my colleagues in the Assembly to put the children and young people framework partnership in Wales on a statutory footing with all 22 local authority areas. I know that the matter to which my right hon. Friend refers exercised the Children's Commissioner for Wales a little while ago. I have very useful discussions with the commissioner and have no doubt that as the Bill progresses there will be discussions about a memorandum of understanding between the commissioner in England, the commissioner in Wales and the other devolved Administrations. I hope and expect that the points raised by my right hon. Friend will come out in those discussions.
    The Secretary of State and I have made it clear to the Children's Commissioner for Wales that our door is always open if he wishes to raise matters with us. We think that the Bill offers a good deal for Wales, because a third of it is Wales-only; it takes forward the devolution agenda sensibly and progressively and we want to ensure that it works well for Wales. We shall work closely with the Children's Commissioner for Wales to deliver the best for the children of Wales.

    Industry/University Links
    Ian Lucas: What discussions he has had with the Minister for Economic Development and Transport of the National Assembly for Wales on encouraging closer working between manufacturing industry and universities in Wales. [169182]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): We have held regular discussions. Strengthening collaborative links between industry, academia and our science base is vital if Wales is to continue to attract and develop high-tech investment and to compete in global markets.
    Ian Lucas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that creating a research infrastructure in an important manufacturing area such as north-east Wales is essential to the continued success of manufacturing in the region? Will he ask the Minister responsible for such matters in the National Assembly for Wales to make an assessment of how much current research for manufacturing companies in north-east Wales is carried out in Wales?
    Mr. Hain: I will happily speak to the Minister for Economic Development and Transport to find out whether it is possible to discover the answer to my hon. Friend's question. He will know that a £150 million technium project is being rolled out the length and breadth of Wales, including two research and development facilities for laser technology—at St. Asaph in north Wales and, of course, at the centre for advanced software technology at Bangor. That marriage of industry, science, innovation and academia is the key to Wales's drive to improve our technological base, our economy and our valued-added ability to win in global markets.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: How many jobs are there in the chemicals sectors in Wales, and how dependent are those jobs on the chemistry taught in Swansea? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the closure of the chemistry department at Swansea university will have a negative impact on the future of that sector in Wales?
    Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the manufacturing sector in Wales, including the chemistry industry, is in good shape. Indeed, the CBI director said that the news for manufacturing is better than it has been for a very long time in Wales. However, in respect of the university of Swansea, I understand that the intention is to close the undergraduate courses over a period of years, while protecting existing students' rights and maintaining postgraduate studies, research and related academic areas.
    Mr. Wiggin: The reason cited for the closure of that department is that courses in other subjects can be run for less money. When asking industry to support universities, how does the right hon. Gentleman respond to the accusation that the Government's targets are forcing universities to offer more and cheaper courses, rather than traditional, scientific research subjects, such as chemistry?
    Mr. Hain: I respond to that accusation by saying that it is clearly nonsense. In fact, we are now seeing more and more collaboration between industry and universities in Wales, including Swansea and Cardiff, which is doing especially well. That is driving forward the Welsh economy's ability to compete. I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman raises this issue given that the Conservative party intends, if it wins the next general election, to institute cuts in the first two years of its period in office, thus reducing education funding in universities and cutting the ability of Wales to prosper. It is no surprise therefore that he did not even know when his manifesto launch for the local election was to take place. He seems to have lost the draft manifesto. Perhaps he can tell us when he will deal with that.
    Mark Tami: The Secretary of State will be aware of the recent announcement of the proposed closure of RAF Sealand and the subsequent possible job losses there. Will he join me in working with the Welsh Development Agency, Flintshire county council and the Assembly to generate new employment? In particular, he has mentioned techniums, so will he encourage the development of techniums in north Wales, especially in areas where we are very successful, such as the aerospace industry?
    Mr. Hain: I will happily do that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on the jewel in the crown of the north-east Wales economy—its Airbus operations and the related support mechanisms. If the Assembly is able to encourage research and development in the technium concept there, it will be a very good thing indeed. In respect of Sealand, yes, I will happily work with him on that because alternative opportunities are available for the workers who have lost their jobs. We are seeing a process of rapid change in industry and throughout the Welsh economy, in which nevertheless more and more jobs are being created all the time, with employment up by 120,000 since the general election in 1997.
    Lembit Öpik: The Secretary of State will be aware that the university of Wales clearly plays an important role in providing a skills base for manufacturing in Wales. Is he aware of the problems presently facing the university of Wales and the fact that a cross-party group of MPs and other individuals are seeking solutions to those difficulties? Will he share his views on what we should be doing, what he has done and how he feels about the confederation proposals in respect of the universities in Wales? Finally, would he be willing to listen to some specific proposals, when they have been formulated by the interested parties, to resolve the issues facing the university of Wales?
    Mr. Hain: Of course, I will be happy to listen to specific proposals from the hon. Gentleman or others, but it is important that universities such as Cardiff and others, are able to market themselves very effectively, as he will agree, in an intensely competitive global higher education market. In particular, Cardiff has done extraordinarily well in the past few years, and other universities in Wales are in a similar position. We want

    1325
    them all to develop in their own ways, rather than having an over-arching bureaucracy that holds them back. Nevertheless, we should consider the different models that exist.
    Donald Anderson: Undergraduate teaching in chemistry will be ended in Swansea, while the university is expanding the teaching of softer, more popular subjects, such as media studies. Surely if the Government are serious about encouraging a science base, as we said in the Budget, we should look again at what Swansea university is suggesting, particularly because the experts say that research needs an undergraduate base. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we wish to thrive as a nation, we cannot go around simply writing media essays to one another?
    Mr. Hain: I could not agree more. The problem with Swansea, as my right hon. Friend will know as a local Member of Parliament, is that both the university senate and council voted overwhelmingly in support of the proposals. I myself am disappointed, not least because I have a company in my constituency that was spun out of Swansea university's chemistry department 10 to 20 years ago. Excellence should be maintained, and the university says that that will indeed be the case at postgraduate level—the very level which feeds into innovation and technological development.

    Economic Inactivity
    Dr. Hywel Francis: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on measures to reduce the levels of economic inactivity in Wales. [169183]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): We hold regular discussions. Recent increases in employment and economic activity rates throughout Wales indicate that real progress is being made, but more needs to be done to reduce levels of economic inactivity.
    Dr. Francis: One of the Government's great successes is the way in which it has tackled economic inactivity among young people. An excellent project in my constituency, Unit 19 Training, links Sandfields comprehensive school to the world of work through accredited skills training provided by the Workers Educational Association. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the project on winning a major national award as part of adult learners week later this month, and would he consider visiting my constituency to see the project in action? Could it be developed with funding such as that provided by the new deal and perhaps replicated in other parts of Wales?
    Mr. Hain: I am aware of the excellent work done by Unit 19, and visited Sandfields in my hon. Friend's constituency only a few months ago to look at that work, which is based around the school and undertaken in co-operation with local industry to make sure that disaffected youngsters are brought back into the labour market and given opportunity and hope for the future. Such programmes would be endangered if the Tory
    1326
    party came to power and introduced plans to axe the new deal. The Labour Government, however, are very proud of the success of such programmes.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: I wish that the Secretary of State was right, because the International Labour Organisation says that youth unemployment in Wales is 13.2 per cent, while the UK average is 12.4 per cent.; employment in Wales is 72.1 per cent. compared with the UK average of 74.8 per cent.; and economic activity in Wales, at 75.9 per cent., lags behind the UK average of 78.7 per cent. Will he tighten his grip on the First Minister or take whatever steps he can, as things are clearly in need of a great deal of improvement?
    Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman calls for improvement, but his party has a record in Wales of mass unemployment—up to 160,000. When we came to power, large parts of Wales had high levels of youth unemployment. It is our new deal programme, other programmes of active economic intervention and our successful running of the economy that have put the Welsh economy, as the director of CBI Wales said only a few days ago, in its best position for decades. We are proud of that record, on which we will fight the June elections and the next general election, when we expect to hammer the Conservatives, given their dreadful record in Wales.

    S4C
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What discussions he has held with (a) S4C and (b) the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the current review of S4C. [169185]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with ministerial colleagues to discuss a range of issues. We met the chief executive of S4C to discuss the current review on 20 April.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he agree that it is vital that S4C and other broadcasters in Wales maintain access to sufficient funding for the digital future that is coming to broadcasting? Will he put the Wales Office, with the support of my hon. Friends, other hon. Members and myself, at the head of a campaign to ensure that Wales is one of the first areas in the United Kingdom to receive digital terrestrial broadcasting and does not lag behind, as has often happened in the past? If he takes that lead, we can have an all-digital future for Wales, which is the best solution for Wales and everyone living there.
    Mr. Touhig: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has discussed that issue with broadcasters in Wales. We think that it is important. The agenda and the range of subjects that we covered at our meetings, particularly with S4C, covered that, as well as the current review, viewing figures, analogue switch-off and so on. We are determined to make sure that, in terms of broadcasting, Wales has a very good deal. My right hon. Friend in particular has worked hard at that, and he and I are happy to share

    1327
    with the hon. Gentleman and with other right hon. and hon. Members the work that we are doing, so that we push forward with a collective agenda to get the best that we can for broadcasting in Wales.
    Chris Bryant: But will my hon. Friend point out to S4C when next he meets its representatives, and to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, that people in the valleys are sick and tired of having to choose between S4C and Channel 4? They do not want S4C or Channel 4, they want S4C and Channel 4, and the only way that that will happen is if the digital freeview service is rolled out across the valleys as soon as possible.
    Mr. Touhig: We are on common ground in that regard. Of course people want Channel 4 and S4C. We are working to try to ensure that that happens. Our discussions have been fruitful, and the review, so far as S4C is concerned, will have an impact on that. We all share a common goal. How we ultimately get there will be important. I have no doubt that it is the view right across the House that we must deliver on this, and we will work hard to do so. As I said in response to an earlier question, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gives it high priority.

    Post Office
    Ann Clwyd: What discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly about proposed Post Office branch closures in Wales. [169186]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend and I hold regular bilateral meetings with the First Minister and other Assembly Ministers to discuss a range of issues, including the impact of the post office network reinvention programme in Wales.
    Ann Clwyd: The post office at Abernant in my constituency is the only shop in the village, the only community centre and the only bank, and 70 per cent. of the people in the Cynon valley claim their benefits through post offices, so it is a retrograde step on the part of the Post Office to shut such a facility in an impoverished area. I hope my hon. Friend will join me in opposing that closure.
    Mr. Touhig: I have taken a close interest in the network reinvention programme, as we all have because it has affected our constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met and has also written to the Post Office management underlining the important social role of post offices and the need for proper local consultation, particularly in the case of communities such as the one my hon. Friend represents, where any closure may impact on elderly, disabled and disadvantaged people. We will continue with those discussions. I know that the closure in Abernant is opposed by Postwatch. I hope that the campaign in which my hon. Friend is involved is successful, and that she succeeds in keeping the post office open for her constituents.
    Mr. Roger Williams: The Minister will be aware that three post offices in my constituency were under threat—Penrhos, Glanrhyd and Cwmphil road. The Post Office has now decided to keep Glanrhyd open and to close Penrhos, which was the one that served the most deprived community, but it has given us no reasons for its decision. Will the Minister help us find out what reasons lie behind the Post Office's decisions in these matters?
    Mr. Touhig: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am ever the diplomat in these matters, but the discussions that I have had with the Post Office on closures have not always been entirely fruitful, and in face-to-face discussions with Post Office representatives I have left them in no doubt what I think of their consultation. A number of colleagues in the House have had face-to-face meetings with Post Office representatives and, as a result, they have extended the consultation period and ensured that Members of Parliament and Assembly Members are given advance notice, but in the interests of our constituents we should not let up in our efforts to ensure that there is proper and adequate consultation, that everyone's views are taken into account and that we have the best possible post office network. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a great deal of money has been put into the network reinvention programme—about £16 million in Wales—which will benefit the overall network at the end of the day.

    Antisocial Behaviour (Monmouthshire)
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will meet the First Minister to discuss strategies to combat antisocial behaviour in Monmouthshire. [169187]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I will certainly do so when I next meet the First Minister. The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 provides a wide range of tools to tackle antisocial behaviour and the Government are determined that people should be able to live their lives free from intimidation and harassment.
    Mr. Edwards: Despite the fall in crime overall, antisocial behaviour and vandalism remain a scourge in many Welsh communities, most recently in Llanelly hill and Clydach in my constituency—matters that I raised with the new chief constable of Gwent when I met him on Friday. Given the additional measures that the Government have introduced, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if communities report all incidents of vandalism, the police will investigate them and the perpetrators will be brought to justice?
    Mr. Hain: I certainly want to see that happen, and I am pleased that the new chief constable of Gwent joined my hon. Friend in examining the problem in his constituency. Antisocial behaviour still plagues too many of our communities across both Wales and England, which is why the recruitment of 120 new community support officers and 760 new police officers is so important. The signing of 77 antisocial behaviour orders in Wales is also encouraging, but I want more ASBOs to be implemented. Police forces and local authorities are not doing enough to stamp the problem out—the powers are there; they must be used.

    Health Service Funding
    Mr. James Gray: What recent discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales Government on the funding of the NHS in Wales. [169189]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with the First Minister and the Minister for Health and Social Services in the Assembly to discuss Government funding and the NHS in Wales.
    Mr. Gray: I am glad to hear that. Why has the number of people on waiting lists in Wales increased from 168,000 at devolution in 1999 to—these are the latest figures—294,000 in March 2004, which is a 75 per cent. increase? Why is spending per head on the national health service in Wales less than that anywhere else in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Touhig: Let us start with 18 years of under-investment by the Tory party. Since the Government came to power, we have spent £4.3 billion on health in Wales, which is a 96 per cent. increase. As for waiting lists, the figures for the last quarter show considerable decreases of more than 70 per cent. for in-patient treatments, and 36 per cent. for out-patient appointments. We are taking steps to improve the health service in Wales, but the Conservative party opposes our investment. We will take that message to the electors, which is why they will vote Labour on 10 June.
    Kevin Brennan: We should always strive to reform and improve public services, but it is not possible without increased investment. Investment in the NHS in Wales has reached record levels during the past few years, but it would be cut under the Opposition's plans.
    Mr. Touhig: My hon. Friend is right. We all know the great patient passport plan advocated by the Conservative party. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) told the Conservative Medical Society:
    "We've got a problem where the NHS and health care has been synonymous. We're here to break that."
    That is the Conservative party's policy. Under patient passports, people in Wales would pay £1,900 for a cataract removal, £5,700 for a knee replacement and £8,500 for a heart bypass. That is why they will vote Labour on 10 June.
    Adam Price: During the past five years, England has seen the biggest hospital-building programme in its history, and the Scottish Executive makes a similar claim for Scotland. Will the Minister take this opportunity to make the same claim for Wales?
    Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman should congratulate the Government on their effort on the health service in Wales, Ten new hospitals are planned or have been started, and our investment is improving the health service in Wales. Where would we be if his
    1330
    party were in power? Wales would be cut off from the rest of the United Kingdom. Again, we will get that message across to the people of Wales on 10 June.

    Employment
    Mr. John Smith: If he will make a statement about employment levels in (a) the Vale of Glamorgan and (b) Wales. [169190]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): The labour market in Wales continues to perform well, and better than the average for the UK economic regions. There are now more people in work than ever before, and the employment rate in the Vale of Glamorgan remains above that of Wales as a whole.
    Mr. Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which confirms that unemployment in my constituency is now at a 30-year low. However, he will know that the Red Dragon project is important for future employment prospects in the Vale of Glamorgan. Will he undertake to do all that he can to convince the Ministry of Defence to roll back the Tornado GR4 platform to the Defence Aviation Repair Agency works at RAF St. Athan, which will provide value for money for taxpayers, enhance our military capability and guarantee the Red Dragon project for 20 years?
    Mr. Hain: I will certainly do all that I can to achieve that objective. Indeed, I have already spoken to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence about it. I was very pleased that the Secretary of State for Defence recently said that we remain absolutely committed to the Red Dragon project.
    My hon. Friend is right, too, about the health of his local labour market. Under Labour, there are more jobs and a stronger economy in the Vale of Glamorgan and throughout Wales. That is why the people of Wales will back Labour on 10 June and in a general election when it comes.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [170147] Mr. Gordon Marsden: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 May.
    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 will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Marsden: Does the Prime Minister welcome the initiative on launching countrywide education maintenance allowances, which will give 16 to 19-year-olds from limited-income families up to £30 a week to stay on and get qualifications? Will he celebrate that radical initiative, which will benefit up to 1,000 families in Blackpool, and the historic achievements of this

    1331
    Government in contrast with the Conservatives, who would shut down life chances, trapped as they are in their Thatcherite past?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to say that the education maintenance allowance will benefit more than 350,000 young people in the next financial year. However, that is not all. In addition, 250,000 people are now on modern apprenticeships and the new deal for the unemployed has helped 1 million people into jobs. That is why it is important that we continue with those policies, not scrap them as the Conservatives would.
    Mr. Michael Howard: British servicemen and women have made, and are making, enormous sacrifices in Iraq on our behalf and on behalf of the Iraqi people. Does the Prime Minister agree that the allegations published in the Daily Mirror have done enormous damage to the reputation of our forces? If they turn out to be true, does he agree that the severest action should be taken against those involved? If they turn out to be false, does he further agree that that is a matter of the utmost seriousness for which the editor of the Daily Mirror will have to take full responsibility?
    The Prime Minister: Of course allegations of this nature are extremely serious. If they are true, that is completely unacceptable: everybody, whether or not they have supported the action in Iraq, would say that. On the other hand, if they are not true, that is also extremely serious. They are being investigated by the Royal Military Police, who should be allowed to carry out their investigations—I have every confidence that they will do so properly and truthfully—and we can then debate the findings.
    Mr. Howard: Turning to the handover of sovereignty on 30 June, will the Prime Minister now answer the questions that I put to him last week and the week before? Who do the Government think should be responsible after 30 June for security issues, the deployment of troops and the custody of detainees? Can the Prime Minister now tell us whether it is likely that more British troops will be sent to Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: On the first point, after 30 June, there will be a complete handover of sovereignty to the new Iraqi Government—they will have complete and full sovereignty. However, as people in Iraq recognise, they will have to maintain coalition troops there to help with security and order. At the present time, we are sitting down and working out what are the right arrangements to ensure that we have not only the maintenance of the coalition troops that is necessary to provide security in order to allow the political process to work, but the right degree of co-operation between the new Iraqi Government and those coalition forces. Obviously, that will have to take into account the need to maintain order and the need to have firm lines of command—particularly for British and coalition troops, who need to know where they stand on these issues, but also to ensure the full involvement of the new Iraqi Government. That is the best that I can say at the present time while those discussions are continuing.
    1332
    In respect of any additional troops who may be required, we are in discussion with our coalition partners and with the Americans about the possibility of providing more troops for different parts of the country. Those discussions are not yet concluded. As I said in the House previously, we will keep the matter under constant review—it is important to do that.
    I want to point out that, although the allegations against British troops are extremely serious, and I have already said that they should be fully investigated, I hope that they do not detract from the work that is being done by thousands of British troops, who risk their lives in Iraq to make the country better. They serve this country well and work to the enormous benefit of the majority of Iraqi people. When I spoke to some of the Ministers from Iraq last week, they wished me to pass on to everyone their support for the work of British troops in places such as Basra to help the Iraqi people.
    Mr. Howard: Of course, I entirely agree with the Prime Minister's last comments and I understand what he said about the position after the handover. Indeed, he has helpfully set out some of the criteria that should be in place when those decisions are made. However, he has not told us what the British Government believe should happen. Does he not owe the House an account of the Government's view of those critical issues? Given that we are less than two months away from the handover, does he agree with the White House spokesman who said last week that what is envisaged after 30 June is the transfer of full sovereignty but only limited authority?
    The Prime Minister: No. I have not read those specific comments but I saw those of Secretary of State Colin Powell. I believe that they say the same as I said a moment ago: of course, full sovereignty will he transferred to the Iraqi Government but the practical necessity for coalition troops to remain means that there must be a proper authority under which they operate. That will be negotiated with the Iraqis. There is no point in my trying to go into the details now, while it is being discussed. The main thing is to ensure a proper system of co-operation that both abides entirely by the principle that the Iraqis are in full, sovereign control of Iraq after 30 June and makes sure that British, American and other coalition troops have proper chains of command. Frankly, it is better for me not to speculate about that at this point but to leave it to the people on the ground to work out the best arrangement.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware of post office closures throughout Lancashire? The problem is that people are being bribed to close them through the enhancements that Royal Mail offers; there is no business case for the closures. The only losers are the public who use the post offices. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that Members of Parliament, local authorities and everybody can see the business case and open the books rather than accepting the post office closures that are taking place?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern. As he knows, we made it clear that the Post Office had to have the commercial freedom to

    1333
    operate in the way in which it believes appropriate. On the other hand, it will have heard my hon. Friend's comments and we believe that it is important that proper consultation takes place.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: In view of the worrying bomb attacks in Athens today, does the Prime Minister believe that there is any need for the Government to review their intended security measures to safeguard the interests of the British team at the summer Olympics?
    The Prime Minister: Like every other Government, we remain in constant contact and dialogue with the Greek Government. Our current view is that the games should go ahead as planned. Of course, we keep those matters under review, but the right hon. Gentleman should not take that as an indication that our view is about to change. We are in constant dialogue but we have every faith in the way in which the Greek authorities are handling matters.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: On another sporting topic of this week, what is the Prime Minister's personal opinion about whether the English cricket team should undertake its tour of Zimbabwe? Personally, I am against it; is he against it?
    The Prime Minister: The position is exactly as I set it out when I was last asked that question. However, there is a difference between stating my personal view, which I previously outlined at the Dispatch Box—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] As I said then, we would prefer the team not to go, but there is a difference between expressing a personal view and ordering the team not to go, which I think would step over the proper line. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will meet the England and Wales Cricket Board tomorrow. However, many people believe—in my opinion, rightly—that the problem resides with the International Cricket Council.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: Yesterday saw the launch of Labour's local government campaign and, I understand, a few clumsy events in Birmingham as well. It was also a significant political anniversary. If the Prime Minister could spare the country any of the mistakes of the '80s and '90s, what would they be?
    The Prime Minister: Most people would remember mass unemployment going over 3 million. They would particularly remember unemployment rising by more than 1 million when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Employment Secretary. Contrast that with 2 million extra jobs in the British economy since this Government came to power.
    Mr. Howard: When the Minister of State, Department for Transport, with characteristic candour, said that he wanted to tax people out of their cars, was he speaking for the Government?
    The Prime Minister: We are not taxing people out of their cars. What we are doing is making a huge investment in public transport, in roads as well as rail,
    1334
    and that is important for the future of the country. What is more, it is only as a result of that additional investment that we are able to see the improvements that there are.
    Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister should have paid a bit more attention to what the Transport Minister said. He went on to say:
    "I don't think fuel is particularly expensive in Britain",
    and that some people think that
    "it's cheaper than it should be."
    Does the Prime Minister think that it is cheaper than it should be?
    The Prime Minister: We have set the fuel duties; they are set in the Budget. Actually, it is true that motoring costs have fallen, not risen, in the past few years. But the point is that we are making our commitment to transport clear by putting a substantial extra investment year on year into our transport system. As a result of the policies outlined by the shadow Chancellor, however, it is the Conservatives' proposal to cut in real terms the transport budget in this country—[Interruption.] Oh yes it is. They are prepared to cut every single budget other than those for the national health service and schools, and even those are to be depleted by their patient and pupil passports. The fact is that we are putting the money in and the right hon. and learned Gentleman would take it out.
    Mr. Howard: I understand why the Prime Minister does not want to talk about what his Transport Minister said, and why he would prefer to talk about our plans, which he consistently misrepresents. He will not say whether he thinks petrol is cheaper than it should be, but the Chancellor obviously thinks that it is, because he is going to put petrol tax up again in September. Is that not just the latest example of Labour letting people down?
    The Prime Minister: We removed the fuel duty escalator. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that his proposals are not for a cut in every budget other than the NHS and schools, but the shadow Chancellor has said quite specifically that there would be no real-terms increases in any of those budgets. What that means—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I would say to the Prime Minister that the policy of the Opposition is not really for the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Order. Let me chair the proceedings of the House of Commons. Perhaps a change in the way of addressing the Chamber would be helpful.
    The Prime Minister: You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise. Let me tell the House which policies I will not pursue on behalf of the Government. I will continue to invest in additional numbers of police in this country. We will continue to invest in the new deal for the young people of this country. We will continue to increase local government spending in this country. We will continue to fund additional increases in pensions for pensioners in this country. What we will not do is reintroduce the poll tax, abolish the minimum

    1335
    wage, abolish the new deal and cut public spending. That is what we will do, that is what we won't do and that is why the British people will support us.
    Mr. Frank Roy: I recently visited four schools in my constituency to discuss the need for a global campaign for education. At Our Lady's high school in Motherwell, I was presented with a petition, which said:
    "We call upon the UK Government to increase support to poorer countries to ensure that every child has access to high quality basic education."
    What message does the Prime Minister have, not just for the signatories of that petition, but for the millions of people throughout the United Kingdom who agree with its sentiments?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches on a point of great concern to people in this country and worldwide: the need to increase the provision of education in the developing world. He will know that the first millennium development goal of the United Nations is to make sure that primary school education is available to all children in the developing world. The plain fact is that, although as a Government we have invested around £1 billion in education in the poorest countries in the world, there is still a great deal more to do. I hope that some of the conclusions of the Africa commission can help with this issue.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: As the Prime Minister makes more promises to the people of this country, does he recall the handwritten promise that he made to the people of Northern Ireland that said:
    "Those who use or threaten violence to be excluded from the government of Northern Ireland"?
    Now that he has accepted the first report of the Independent Monitoring Commission, which states clearly that Sinn Fein remains responsible for the ongoing terrorist violence in Northern Ireland, will he keep that promise from 1998?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely because we kept that promise that Sinn Fein is not in government at present. Let me remind the House that we have suspended the government of Northern Ireland on that basis. What is important is to make sure that there can be no way that anyone comes back into government in Northern Ireland unless it is absolutely clear that violence and paramilitary activity have been given up for good.
    Mr. Mark Todd: Does the Prime Minister agree that fighting crime is essentially a partnership between the public and police? Will he commend the South Derbyshire crime and disorder reduction partnership, whose record is among the best in the country? Will he pick out in particular the example of the event that I attended last week involving the introduction of a joiner to go around assisting elderly people with home security? Is there a case for making sure that the best practice of such partnerships is shared across the country?
    The Prime Minister: Let me congratulate those in my hon. Friend's constituency who have been engaged in this home security plan. It is an important example of good practice and we are trying to make sure that that is rolled out across the country. The Home Office is having meetings with practitioners from different parts of the country, to help not just with home security, particularly for the elderly, but to deal with antisocial behaviour. That is one major issue on which the community, if it comes together properly, can make a huge difference.
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister for the Environment, who said that building on flood plains was inappropriate" If he does, can he explain the extraordinary report of his inspector Mary Travers on the Tewkesbury local plan? She actually proposed building on flood plain between the villages of Longford and Innsworth, building on green belt and building that would cause villages to coalesce. Will he investigate that report, call it in and explain it?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Full answer."] There is not much help in my notes anyway.
    I will certainly investigate the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. Obviously, I cannot make any promises about calling in the report, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to consider. Since the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of housing, I will point out that today marks the fulfilment of restoring 1 million additional homes to decent housing under this Government's housing investment. I know that that is nothing to do with his point, but at least it is in my notes.
    Mr. Michael Meacher: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that pacification by brute force, whether the mass killings at Falluja, the alleged use of torture, or the unilateral annexation by force of significant sections of the west bank, will only inflame resistance and not produce a just or lasting peace? Will he therefore loudly declare, on behalf of the international community, that there must be bilateral negotiations between the opposing sides, because only a political settlement by mutual consent, and not a militarily imposed settlement, will have any hope of proving long-lasting?
    The Prime Minister: We must distinguish clearly between two separate situations. In respect of Iraq, let me repeat again that, if there has been abuse of human rights, torture or degradation of prisoners, that is wholly unacceptable and it is what we went to Iraq to get rid of, not to perpetuate. However, I should point out every time I answer this question, because I think it only fair to British troops, that the vast bulk of British troops out there would also be horrified if any such incidents had taken place.
    Let me tell my right hon. Friend about just some of the things that British troops have been doing over the past few days. They have been providing new, safe drinking water for up to 100,000 people, installing electricity pylons, ensuring that they can run training courses for primary health care assistants and rebuilding the Basra sports station, as well as engaging in literally

    1337
    thousands of local infrastructure projects. When we investigate these allegations, it is important to take a balanced view.
    As for what is happening in Falluja, I am pleased to say that we are trying to bring in Iraqis to police the situation themselves. I think that that is sensible. I believe there is a possibility—I put it no higher—that we can calm the situation and get it under control. The more that we "I raqi-ise" the security aspects, the better things will be.
    In respect of the middle east, I believe that everything should be part of a negotiated settlement between the two sides. I do not think that we should prejudge that negotiated settlement in any way. I think it right for us again to maintain balance—to condemn, of course, any illegal activity and reprisals, but at the same time to condemn the terrorists who also kill innocent people.
    Mr. David Laws: Why does the Prime Minister think he is losing the trust of the British people?
    The Prime Minister: In the end, that is a judgment that the British people will make at the ballot box. In the end, what will count is whether we have delivered on the stable economy, the improved public services, the reduction in poverty and the reduction in crime that formed the basis on which we were elected. I believe that in respect of all those we have a very good story to tell.
    Helen Jones: The new children's centre in my constituency caters for more than 900 children through a combination of nursery provision and a Sure Start programme. While that excellent initiative is tackling disadvantage at its roots, in some parts of my constituency, parents have no access to such good facilities. What plans has the Prime Minister to expand the network of children's centres so that children can be given the best possible start in life and parents can have access to good, affordable child care? Does he believe that that would be aided by the massive cut in the budget for the under-fives that the Conservatives would impose?
    The Prime Minister: The Sure Start programme now helps about 400,000 children living in disadvantaged areas. That is a huge step forward. I think that virtually everyone who speaks to people engaged in the programme sings its praises. In addition, we are setting up children's centres around the country, and I hope that that provision will reach parts of Warrington that Sure Start has not reached. There will also be a growth in real spending on child care of some 17 per cent. over the next few years. All the evidence suggests that investment in children's early years results in better schooling for them in later life and a more responsible attitude towards society as a whole.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: I am sure that the House welcomes Sinn Fein's exclusion from government in Northern Ireland because of its breach of the Good Friday agreement. Can the Prime Minister explain why he has excluded the three peaceful political parties from government as well?
    The Prime Minister: In the end, we must find a way forward, and one that will be agreed on by everyone. I think that everyone accepts that, if we can possibly do so, it is best for us to do so with all the main political parties that have support in Northern Ireland being represented in the Government; but, as I explained in the speech of October 2002, that can only happen if it happens alongside not just an absolute undertaking to cease all forms of paramilitary activity, but a fulfilment of that undertaking. It is precisely this issue that is holding the situation up, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there have been real gains in Northern Ireland as a result of the peace process.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Now that there are record numbers of teachers in our schools and an unprecedentedly high level of pupil achievement, may we think about those who ensure that our children can cross the road safely to get to school? Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to school safety crossing patrol officers, who do such valuable work in looking after our children? Is he aware that some of them are little better off than they would have been had they stayed on benefits, which could be rectified if they received a higher level of earnings disregard? Will he look into that so that our lollipop men and women can be rightly rewarded?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has tabled an early-day motion on school crossing patrol officers and I am happy to pay tribute to the fantastic job that they do. As for paying them more, he will also know that the new employment credit should help them to supplement their earnings. One reason why we have rising employment in this country is that, as well as having the minimum wage and the new deal, we are making work pay for people. Of course, we keep the level of their earnings under constant review.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Turning back to post office closures, in terms of public service, how can it be right that a busy sub-post office such as that at Buchanhaven in my constituency is offered £100,000 to close but no incentive, encouragement or support to stay open?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes but, again, that is an issue for which the Post Office must ultimately take responsibility. I am sure that he is making those points to the Post Office, but it must make sure that it can balance the books and that the financial systems are in place to enable it to work within the financial limits that it has set.
    Mrs. Joan Humble: My right hon. Friend will be aware of a recent report into child care by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. Further to his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), will he look at further expanding nursery provision and building on the provision that we have already seen in our schools? Good quality nursery care is vital to provide both an environment in which young children can socialise and the support that their parents so badly need.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A few years ago, we promised a guaranteed part-time nursery place for every four-year-old, and we have now fulfilled that for every three-year-old. It is our intention to ensure that we continue with Sure Start, extra child care places and the new children's centres, so that we get comprehensive provision for the under-fives. As I said a moment ago, that is a solid investment in those children's future, which will repay a dividend not just to them but to the whole of society.
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: The Prime Minister has on previous occasions referred to the welcome 10 per cent. reduction in cancer mortality outcomes, which is largely due to a reduction in men's smoking and improvements in breast cancer care. However, will he and his Government look into the differences in outcomes between those from disadvantaged and those from advantaged groups? In particular, will he examine the effect of target-driven appointment systems on disadvantaged groups not getting their appointments when they should?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady's point about the advances that have been achieved is right and it is worth pointing out that in the past few years we have managed to invite far more women for screening. We have also ensured that additional cancer equipment is going into our hospitals. However, her point on some of the more disadvantaged areas is also true. The truth is that the
    1340
    large majority of people now get access reasonably quickly, but we have to ensure that that is extended throughout. I hope that the additional investment, which will run into hundreds of millions of pounds over the next few years, will do that, but I entirely understand and accept the point that she makes.
    Mr. Kerry Pollard: May I welcome the extra £3 billion that has just been announced for housing? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that money could be well used to reduce housing waiting lists and provide local housing for local people in my constituency and that it could enable key worker housing to be provided, thus helping to provide essential local services? Will he ensure that a good slice of that money goes to St. Albans?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, the money will be allocated on an entirely fair and objective basis, but my hon. Friend is right to welcome the substantial additional investment in housing, which enables us to ensure both that we bring up to proper standard some of the poorest social housing in our communities and that we have the key worker housing that we need—that point is incredibly important. That must go alongside an expansion in the number of houses, carefully targeted, with the majority on brownfield sites, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has outlined. If we do not provide additional housing in the south, it will be extremely difficult for people, and especially for young people trying to get on the housing ladder.

Arms Trade
12.30 pm
Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about any Treaty on International Arms Transfers adopted by an International Conference held under the auspices of the United Nations.
It may help the House if I explain at the outset that the Bill has been prepared by eight members of the International Development Committee from all parties. As we undertake our work as a Select. Committee, we are very conscious of the devastation caused by conflict in Africa and elsewhere, invariably perpetuated by small arms and other conventional weapons. Indeed, for sub-Saharan Africa and much of the world, the weapon of mass destruction is the AK47.
Small arms are, sadly, all too often in the hands of children. It is reassuring news that, through the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone, the UN will for the first time treat the enlistment of children as soldiers as a war crime under international law.
The cost of such conflict is individual and tragic, and there is also a collective cost that the developing world cannot afford. It is obviously impossible in the time available to begin to describe the individual tragedies of hundreds of thousands of children and families in Africa and elsewhere, living in daily fear of armed violence, but let me give just one example.
During the recent conflict, over 10 years or so, rebels in Sierra Leone deliberately drugged children to use them as child soldiers. As part of their terror campaign, these children with AK47s would target pregnant women and take bets on whether the foetus was male or female. That is the level of degradation that was reached.
Today, the so-called Lord's Resistance Army in northern Uganda is still kidnapping children and forcing them to fight against their own families and friends. Uganda spends almost a quarter of its gross domestic product on arms, yet the World Bank ranks it 147th lowest on the human development index. Angola spends more than a third of its income on arms, yet it is rated 164th lowest.
The Select Committee and all-party groups often hear evidence of why sub-Saharan Africa is going backwards—how, on existing evidence, the continent is unlikely to meet the 2015 millennium development goals. Yesterday, we had the very welcome launch by the Prime Minister of the Commission for Africa. One of the reasons why the region is going backwards is that Africa is a continent of conflict. It is estimated that $22 billion is spent every year on arms by countries the majority of whose population live or less than $1 a day. Conflict fuels poverty.
Last year, the World Health Organisation estimated the economic loss to Africa of conflict at a staggering $15 billion a year. Typically, conflict leaves a country 15 per cent. poorer, with about 30 per cent. more people living in absolute poverty. Hon. Members may ask why I am introducing a ten-minute Bill. The reason is that, extraordinarily, despite the damage that many small arms and conventional weapons cause, there is still no binding comprehensive international law to control the
1342
export of conventional weapons. There is no international control on the proliferation of AK47s and similar weapons.
In fairness, the UK Government have done much to ensure that this country's arms trade and defence sales respect human rights and development needs, and they also introduced the Export Control Act 2002. Much more needs to be done internationally, and given that the Government have made significant progress and led by example, they are clearly better placed to help take the lead internationally and to act as a standard-bearer for a more transparent and accountable arms trade throughout the world.
A number of UK non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam and Amnesty International have drafted a suggested text for an arms trade treaty. It is a simple, clear document that defines the criteria against which any proposed transfer of conventional arms should be permitted. It would require states to incorporate those criteria into their national law, and to make regular public reports to an international registry of all arms transferred. Such a treaty would make it clear when arms exports are in breach of international law, and when the exporter has knowledge—or ought reasonably to have knowledge—that the arms will be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian law.
Such a treaty would ensure that any state exporting weapons—not only newly manufactured arms, but re-exported, second-hand weapons—has a clear responsibility to make certain that they are used in a manner consistent with standards already agreed under international law. It would require an exporting state to monitor closely what happens once the arms leave its borders, since the manner in which the recipient state will use the weapons might affect the lawfulness of the transfer. It would be an international means of control to ensure that all nations work to the same standard.
The Bill would encourage the UK Government to act internationally to agree an arms trade treaty by 2006, and to prevent arms from being exported to destinations where they are likely to be used to commit grave violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Indeed, the House supported some of those principles during the progress of the Export Control Bill. On Third Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), said in support of a Government amendment that
"the Government were very much aware of the depth of concern. We have addressed that concern first by strengthening the role played by guidance under the Bill, and secondly by putting beyond all doubt the Government's continuing commitment to sustainable development in the licensing process, together with all the other relevant consequences listed in the schedule."—[Official Report, 24 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 630.]
Indeed, the Foreign Secretary has already signalled some support for my Bill's principles. When giving evidence recently to the Quadripartite Committee, he said:
"We are having consultations on this. It goes without saying that if I felt an arms control treaty would deal with many of the problems which you have raised and we could get it through, I would be in favour of it. After all, we have signed up to all sorts of instruments in terms of arms control and there is no argument there, in principle, between us".

1343
Of course, not all countries would immediately accept the idea of an arms trade treaty, but that should not prevent us and others from forging ahead. Not all countries have signed the mine ban treaty, but since it came into force not a single country has openly traded anti-personnel land mines, and far fewer Governments are using them. Under the programme of action of the United Nations conference on small arms, Governments agreed
"to assess applications for export authorizations according to strict national regulations and procedures that cover all categories of small arms and light weapons and are consistent with States' existing responsibilities under international law."
There are many genuinely well-intentioned statements of principles and best-practice guidelines on the arms trade, but there are no treaties or enforceable international legislation. The Bill seeks to encourage transparency, accountability and a legal framework for a responsible and legitimate arms trade. It would set out principles based on states' existing responsibilities according to international standards. It would pull together relevant international laws and standards that should apply to international arms transfers, such as the Geneva conventions, the mine ban treaty and the genocide convention.
Early next year, the UK will assume the G8 presidency, and later in the year we will assume the EU presidency. The Bill seeks to encourage the UK Government to demonstrate robust political leadership by introducing an arms trade treaty that would help to reduce the risk to millions in Africa of conflict and misery. I hope that the House recognises that we will make little progress in meeting the millennium development goals and the various targets that we hope to achieve if conflict is still being perpetuated in the world due to the proliferation of small arms. I therefore hope that the House will give leave to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Tony Baldry, John Barrett, Mr. John Battle, Hugh Bayley, Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. Quentin Davies, Chris McCafferty and Tony Worthington.

Arms Trade
  ARMS TRADE
  Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about any treaty on international arms transfers adopted by an international conference held under the auspices of the United Nations: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 July, and to be printed [Bill 102].
Opposition Day
[10TH ALLOTTED DAY—FIRST PART]
Opposition Day

  Housing
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and that there is a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  12.40 pm
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I beg to move,
  That this House regrets the Government's failure effectively to address the worsening problems of housing affordability, homelessness, sustainable development and house price inflation; laments the failure to diagnose correctly the underlying causes of house price inflation, including the insecurity of savings under the present Government; notes the Council of Mortgage Lenders' survey which found that 81 per cent. of the population aspire to home ownership and believes that key workers should not be penalized by high property prices; further regrets the rising numbers of vulnerable people living in temporary accommodation; urges the Government to explore new options for accessing empty homes to meet demand for social housing, as well as enabling people to move from social housing to owning their own homes; further notes that there was no ministerial statement or debate in Government time in response to the Barker Review which itself fails to provide acceptable solutions to these acute problems and poses a serious threat to the nation's green fields, to sustainable communities and to robust local democracy by its recommendation that housing targets be set at a regional level.
  When I entered the House in 1997, I made my maiden speech on saving the green belt known as the Meriden gap, which lies between Coventry and Birmingham, but never did I envisage the scale of the assault on that green lung. The Government's changes to planning have led to back gardens being ripped up for executive homes and to neighbour being set against neighbour, making housing almost the hottest issue in areas such as mine. Neither did I expect to stand here facing a Labour Government to lament a rise in homelessness and a decline in affordable housing.
  Difficult as it must be, the Government should first and foremost admit that something has gone seriously wrong. The public will not accept that the blame lies elsewhere. Seven years is a long time to be without a proper home. No one can be in any doubt about the seriousness of the housing crisis in this country. Only last week a front-page newspaper headline referred to house price inflation of 19 per cent. Most of us will know someone, usually a young person, who is struggling to get a foot on the property ladder. As MPs, we see constituency cases involving more and more people living in temporary accommodation.
  To their credit, the Government have conducted a review—the Barker review of housing, published on 17 March. I say that the Government have conducted a review, but it would be more accurate to say that the Treasury has conducted the review. I have to say that the Barker report bears all the hallmarks of Treasury-focused assessment rather than those of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or of an environment-based body of work.
  The Chancellor waxed enthusiastic on Budget day about the publication of the report, and we all know from his pre-Budget statement in November that he

  1345
  believes that the way to solve the housing crisis is simply to build more houses. There will always be house building, but using it as the key instrument for dealing with affordability is both misguided and naïve. To believe that mass house building will solve the housing crisis is to misunderstand the nature of the problem. The pattern of misdiagnosing the nature of the problem and prescribing the wrong solution is common under this Government. It appears that their approach to housing is no exception.
  There are currently two separate but related problems. It is true that, as a country, we need to increase our housing stock, but there is another problem—house price inflation. The reality is that house price inflation—an economic trend that is snatching the property ladder away from so many people—is in large part a consequence of the Government's own failings. I accept that housing shortages play a part in inflating prices, but even that gives rise to the question of what the Government have been doing for the past seven years to bring about such a decline in house building, bringing us to a position in which fewer new homes were built last year than at any time since 1924. That takes some doing.
  Mr. Peter Pike: The hon. Lady came into the House in 1997. Between 1983 and 1997, 13 Conservative Ministers visited Burnley, where the problem is one of low demand—quite different from what she is describing. The previous Conservative Government never did anything to deal with the problem in Burnley, and it has become horrendous, with 4,500 empty houses in the area. Does she accept that we had to wait for a Labour Government and their housing renewal pathfinder project to begin to tackle the problem?
  Mrs. Spelman: I fully understand the gravity of the problem in Burnley, and am deeply sympathetic to the needs of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. However, if he waits, he will see that later in my speech I shall come to the question of how to help in a constituency such as his. I think that the public will be more interested in what is going to happen in the future than in a retrospective analysis.
  It has not proved safe to save under Labour. Following the Chancellor's raid on pension funds, more people are buying property as a form of security for the future. In the absence of a Government statement on the Barker report that would have told us what they think about it, we will have to take the report as a proxy for Government thinking on the subject. The Government must use some of their own time in the House to state otherwise.
  We still have had no statement on the Barker review. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) for securing a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall last week. The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said that work on the Barker report was getting under way, including consultation, so why do not the Government try to consult colleagues in Parliament? There have been calls from both sides of the House for a debate in Government time on housing.
  1346
  After all, the Government allowed the report to be published almost two months ago. It is not unreasonable that their silence might be construed as acceptance, at least of the report's main thrust. That would be a mistake, as I shall explain.
  The report is premised on a series of false assumptions. First, and quite fundamentally, I do not understand why the 2001 census findings were ignored as the basis for projecting demand. Not only is that information more recent than that used by Professor Barker, but the Government claimed that the 2001 census was a good deal more accurate than its predecessor. Crucially, it shows that there appear to be almost 1 million fewer inhabitants in this country than was previously thought. That may mean that the scale of the housing shortage is smaller than we thought.
  In addition, the report assumes that important demographic trends—such as immigration levels, the birth rate and the level of single home ownership—will remain the same. Given the social changes of the past few decades, that simply cannot be realistic.
  Professor Barker's key recommendation is for a huge increase in house building, but that is a very blunt instrument when it comes to tackling the underlying problem. For a start, it takes time to deliver house building on the scale envisaged in the Barker review, so it is not a solution that would deliver short-term relief. Furthermore, such a scramble to put up houses may well compromise standards and suppress efforts to find more eco-friendly building methods.
  New build accounts for only 1 per cent. of UK housing stock. Most people buy or rent existing properties, so surely the most immediate solution to housing shortages is to make more of the existing housing stock available. There are still 718,000 empty homes in this country, and my party is looking at what could be done to bring more of them into use.
  Another fundamental problem is that plenty of houses are available, but in the wrong places. The flight from our cities to the countryside is not sustainable, in any sense. In my view, it is a symptom of the Government's policies across the board on transport, crime and education.
  When I go to my constituency, the Meriden gap is a strip of green belt five miles wide that holds the cities of Birmingham and Coventry apart, lest they coalesce into an even greater conurbation in the west midlands. Yet if one catches the train into Birmingham from my constituency, one travels across great swathes of derelict land that are ripe for regeneration and, potentially, housing. Commuters have to make that journey at varying degrees of rapidity, polluting the atmosphere and adding to their working day. Surely that cannot be the most sensible planning model for the future.
  There are similar tracts of land throughout the country, and we should be reclaiming them. Instead, the Government have offered us their sustainable communities plan. How could they ignore the environmental imperative, which is immediately apparent to all, that if there is one region in the country least well equipped to cope with a huge additional burden of houses it is the south-east? The south-east currently has 30 per cent. less water reserves than it had a decade ago, and the rate of decline is increasing. That is in addition to transport and other infrastructure

  1347
  requirements, which together make a persuasive case that further house building in the south-east is unsustainable.
  Milton Keynes is another example. The hospital there was originally built to serve a population of 15,000, but we have seen the town expand almost exponentially. Now, a sustainable communities plan would add even more housing to put pressure on basic infrastructure, such as the hospital that has to serve that catchment area. How can that be called a sustainable community? Or consider the Thames gateway project, where land assigned for house building is at risk of flooding, in a region expected to see a 31 cm rise in sea levels by 2050. How can that be sustainable?
  Last week, I visited the proposed site of a new building programme near Ashford, in Kent. Kent is the garden of England, but it is at risk of becoming a patio under the Government's house building plans. Why do the Government have a fixation with building in the south-east? It is extraordinary that a Labour Government should turn their back on what they like to term their heartlands in the north. The Government have completely overlooked the potential that the north offers for addressing the nation's housing needs. The Government provide a framework in which individuals must make choices about where to work and live. Demand for housing will change. For example, Oracle has moved its business from the M4 corridor, where it had exhausted the skilled labour supply, to my constituency to tap into the pool of labour available in the midlands and the better infrastructure.
  Ms Dari Taylor: Is the hon. Lady so unaware of what is happening in the north-east, where local authorities with clued-in policies are using stock transfer, derelict land and the arm's length housing associations to renew housing? Has she not visited the area and seen what progressive Labour authorities are doing with the support of a Labour Government?
  Mrs. Spelman: I am well aware of what is happening, but I regret the paucity of ambition. So much more needs to be done. I am all the more aware of that having paid a visit to North Tyneside council, which has a Conservative elected mayor and is now run by the Conservatives. We have brought £7.5 million of regeneration money to the area, to provide regeneration that never happened during the long period of Labour hegemony.
  So many towns and cities north of Milton Keynes could benefit so much from spreading economic growth up from London and the south-east and more evenly across the country. What is wrong with Birmingham, for example? In common with other cities such as Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle, the central business district has been regenerated. We have the exciting new Bull Ring, but it is surrounded by a collar of decay and dereliction. Surely that is where the Government should focus their attention, rather than the easy option of greenfield sites.
  The Government have a target of 60 per cent. new build on brownfield, but it is just not happening. To accept the Barker recommendations would be to take
  1348
  the brakes off planning in the green belt and double the house building target. It will just increase the huge skirt of concrete round our hollowed out cities and destroy for ever the green and pleasant land that characterises this country.
  Ms Karen Buck: The hon. Lady makes a strong case for the development of the north-east. If a Conservative Mayor is elected in London in June, will that mean the cancellation of the housing development in the Thames gateway which designed to accommodate the projected increase of 800,000 people in the Greater London area?
  Mrs. Spelman: We are in an election campaign period and the hon. Lady should await the outcome of the election. As a party we are, of course, optimistic.
  The flipside of house building in the countryside is successful urban regeneration, but as the debate in Westminster Hall on this subject last week showed the Government have met real problems with their programme. Some 20 to 25 regeneration initiatives are due to end in 2006 and hon. Members were asking how those projects will be sustained. The House of Commons Library has identified at least 48 different sources of funding for regeneration, and the need to cobble together all those sources locks up project managers very inefficiently. Just because the Government got their fingers burnt in a few schemes, such as Aston Pride, they should not get cold feet. Does it not illustrate a paucity of ambition on the part of the Government that, according to an alliance of the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation and the Local Government Association, only 50 per cent. of the areas deemed at risk of decline are covered by any regeneration strategy and funding?
  Dr. Brian Iddon: It sounds as though we are entering a period of enlightenment on the part of the Conservative party. However, I remind the hon. Lady that Conservative regeneration policies were sadly wrong, because they were not prepared to tackle the community needs at the same time as regenerating the houses. Is she prepared to support a regional assembly in the north-west, which would attempt all the things that she is preaching to the Government today? More importantly, if the Conservatives ever got into power again, would they put the cash on the table?
  Mrs. Spelman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman finds my speech enlightened, but I have always held these views. I feel passionately about the issue and it is one of the reasons I entered politics. As I travel round this country and see what needs to be done in terms of regeneration, it reinforces my passion to tackle the issue. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about regional assemblies. In case he has not noticed, I can tell him that my party opposes regional assemblies because we fervently believe that important decisions on planning and regeneration should rest with democratically elected local councillors who are closest to those needs and answerable to the electorate on the doorstep. Regional assemblies would take those powers away from local government, and that is the source of our strong opposition to them.

  1349
  Fundamentally, those regeneration projects that are under way will fail if the communities do not have ownership of them. Too often Government try to impose projects on a community rather than involving a community from the outset. Without that partnership and roots-up regeneration, so many of these projects are destined to failure.
  The insistence by Government on dictating to communities how they should live gets a new twist from the Barker report, which recommends that planning decisions should be taken away from local government and given to new regional planning bodies—and that relates to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). That would remove an important decision-making power from a democratically elected council and give it to an unelected body, in yet another assault on our democratic rights. I begin to wonder what the Government believe local government is for. Surely a local councillor is better placed to assess the impact of a planning decision on his or her locality than a regional officer who may be literally hundreds of miles away.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In fact, the situation is worse than my hon. Friend suggests. Under recommendation 6, Barker recommends that regional planning bodies and regional housing boards should be merged to create a single body to manage regional housing markets and to deliver regional affordability targets. After seven years of failure in housing, all that the Government can do is suggest more layers of government and more bureaucracy. Does my hon. Friend think that that will solve the problem?
  Mrs. Spelman: I do not think that it will solve the problem at all; it is further evidence of regionalisation by stealth. The Government will continue to feel our opposition to that as our friends in another place demonstrate their defence of our democratic rights in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.
  Before Labour were elected, they said that we must not allow our precious green space to become easy prey to developers, yet the Barker report shows that talk really is cheap for the Government. Now we hear that they want to relax green belt planning laws, remove local obstacles to planning and impose huge, environmentally unsustainable house building targets in the south-east. The Deputy Prime Minister even says openly that he is sick of people shouting about protecting greenfield sites.
  The fact is that every sod of turf torn up from a greenfield site to make way for new housing development is an indictment of the Government's failed housing policy. It is an indictment of their failure to stimulate economic growth evenly throughout the country. It is an indictment of their failure to regenerate urban brownfield sites as a sustainable alternative location for new houses. It is an indictment of their fixation with centralised decision making and of their narrow focus on supply-side economics as the sole means of addressing affordability.
  Mr. Clive Betts: Does the hon. Lady accept that it is also an indictment of the 18 years when her party was in power? That resulted in massive cuts in modernisation programmes for council
  1350
  housing and the ending of schemes such as enveloping to bring private sector housing up to standard. No attempt was made to regenerate the coalfields, and there were no policies to encourage building on brownfield sites while we saw building on one greenfield site after another throughout the country.
  Mrs. Spelman: Labour Members clearly do not like what I am saying, but their arguments are wearing a bit thin. I am not looking backwards but forwards. However, I fought in a Nottinghamshire constituency in 1992 and I recall that it was the Conservatives who set up the coalfields communities campaign, so it is not true to say that nothing was done for those communities.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: As we are looking at the Conservative record, my hon. Friend has no doubt visited the centre of Newcastle upon Tyne and seen the tremendous riverside development there, which has been praised throughout Europe. That was done by the Conservative party, which set up the Tyne and Wear development corporation. If my hon. Friend has visited the historic centre of the city, she will have seen Granger town where a renewal project initiated by our right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) when he was a Minister has just been completed.
  Mrs. Spelman: I am grateful for that intervention from my hon. Friend. He was in the House at that time so he can put the record straight. He also gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). I think it is generally acknowledged that issues such as how to breathe life back into our cities are close to his heart. It is the Conservatives who will really deliver on that regeneration.
  Alistair Burt: Does my hon. Friend also recall the tremendous city challenge projects that the Conservative Government introduced, especially in areas of dereliction and on brownfield sites? The Conservative Government and Michael Heseltine led on ideas such as the initiative to demolish the Moss Side flats in Manchester to redevelop an estate that has been part of the regeneration of that city.
  Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend who has given us yet another example that helps to counterbalance the indictment made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) when he said that nothing had been achieved in 18 years. I can add to those examples by reference to the successful city challenge project in Tipton in the west midlands region, whence I hail.
  David Wright: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Spelman: No, I want to proceed.
  My party has always supported the aspiration to home ownership and has pioneered ways of extending affordability to more and more people. Whatever they may claim, Labour Members still appear to have something of a hang-up about property ownership. Research commissioned by the Council of Mortgage Lenders shows that 82 per cent. of the population aspire to own their own home, so surely the Government are

  1351
  being arrogant when they ignore that aspiration. Worse, they are guilty of thwarting the aspirations of many people, with policies such as the abolition of MIRAS—mortgage interest relief at source—the imposition of stamp duty on first-time buyers and soaring stealth taxes such as council tax, which has increased by 70 per cent. since Labour came to power.
  Is it any wonder that the number of first-time buyers entering the property market is the lowest since records began? The sheer scale of the housing crisis requires fresh thinking. Members on both sides of the Chamber can contribute to the solution if the Government are willing to listen.
  My party is consulting widely because we recognise the need to address affordability and sustainability, and to provide high-quality social housing. We must enable people to take the first step on the property ladder; we must develop ways of bringing people through social housing to home ownership—
  Andy King: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Spelman: No, I am coming to the end of my remarks—[Interruption.] I was making an important point.
  We must defend the needs of key workers, who should not be penalised, or excluded from the opportunity of home ownership, for the service they give our country.
  The Barker report poses more questions than it solves. In the Government's stony silence on the report, the voices of the homeless and of those who aspire to a better home, as well as of those who truly value Britain's landscape, go unanswered. But we have heard them; we share their hopes and the next Conservative Government will deliver.
  1.7 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "commends the Government's record on housing, and the progress it has made in delivering sustainable communities, as set out in Making it Happen: The Northern Way and elsewhere; notes that one million more people own their homes now than in 1997, whilst mortgage rates are at their lowest since the 1950s; notes that since 1997 there are one million fewer social homes below the decency standard and welcomes the Government's approval of 58 new schemes that could make decent another 170,000 social homes; applauds the fact that the number of families with children in bed and breakfast accommodation for longer than six weeks has reduced by at least 99.3 per cent. since March 2002; supports the Government's plans in the Thames Gateway and newer growth areas to deliver new sustainable communities and provide an extra 200,000 homes; further welcomes the action the Government has taken to support the creation of 230,000 affordable homes since 1997, to help over 10,000 key workers into home ownership in areas of high demand, and to reduce rough sleeping to the lowest level since records began; further supports the Government's creation of a £500 million Market Renewal Fund to tackle the worst cases of low housing demand and abandonment; applauds the creation of regional housing boards to ensure investment is focused on regional priorities; and welcomes the fact that the Government has added 25,000 hectares to the greenbelt with a further 12,000 hectares in prospect, and is exceeding its brownfield target, having built 64 per cent. of new homes on previously developed land in 2003."
  1352
  I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on what I believe was her debut speech at the Dispatch Box in her new shadow capacity. I would also like to thank her. They say that timing is all in politics, so I thank her for having timed this debate to perfection. It has been called on the very day on which the, Government are celebrating the success of our decent homes programme. It is the day on which we are celebrating the reduction by 1 million in the number of substandard homes since we came to power in 1997, and on which we are announcing major new investments in our programme to renew social housing.
  Why is that investment necessary? Why was it necessary in the first place for the Government to embark on our decent homes programme? The answer lies in Tory indifference and neglect of those living in council houses and other forms of social housing. The horrifying fact is that, when the Government came to power in 1997, we faced a £19 billion backlog of repairs to council and housing association properties. In 1997, an amount of homes equivalent to all those in the entire west midlands region—2.1 million homes—failed to meet the standards of decency that tenants deserve, so our first priority in housing policy was to put that right. That is why we released more than £5 billion in local authority capital receipts for investment in refurbishing council homes. That is why we have continued to invest year on year to make public housing decent.
  Ms Dari Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the housing programme for people in the north-east in the 1980s and 1990s was coloured by two factors? First, we could not obtain sufficient money from the housing improvement programme because the then Government denied us the right to modernise and repair. The second factor, which was caused by financial deregulation under the Conservatives, was negative equity—a scar across my constituency and the whole north-east.
  Keith Hill: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I share her passion and I shall talk about negative equity in due course. We are in the process of putting right that historical wrong suffered by people living in her region—the north-east—and by her constituents. I am delighted to say that I met some of her constituents today at our celebration of the decent homes programme. They are over the moon about what the Government have been able to offer them through that programme.
  David Wright: Is it not interesting that the Conservatives talk a lot about choice in relation to local authority housing refurbishment, but the only option available under the Conservatives was "transfer or nothing"? Did not this Labour Government provide local authorities with different options to bring new investment into local authority housing? We should be congratulated on doing that.
  Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have offered a variety of routes to improve council housing stock. Above all, we have vastly increased the investment in improving the housing stock. The Government and the Labour party believe in social housing and in offering serious opportunities for tenant

  1353
  empowerment. The purpose of our decent homes programme is not merely to improve the physical fabric of our estates, but to provide the opportunity for tenants to take control of their own lives. As they have told me today and previously, the whole programme is bringing them a sense of self-respect and power over their lives that they never enjoyed before, and I am immensely proud of that.
  In fact, under this Government, more than 1 million tenants are better off; 1 million fewer homes are left neglected; and 1 million fewer homes are left unrepaired. That is a great achievement, and we are on track to make every home in the public sector decent by 2010. Our decent homes programme is offering people warm, weatherproof and more modern homes. We are installing new facilities, such as new kitchens, bathrooms and central heating, and better insulation. Many of us take those things for granted, but they mean a huge amount to people who have not got them.
  Mrs. Spelman: I wish to intervene because I am concerned that the right hon. Gentleman might not be minded to give way to other colleagues. I want to make the point that it depends what he means by the word "decent". Perhaps he will be aware while trumpeting today's announcement that the Construction Products Association has voiced its scepticism about the Government's self-defined targets for decency in housing standards being ambitious enough.
  Keith Hill: I am trying to maintain my calm, but I really do think that that is downright cheek from a party that was so concerned about the conditions in which council house tenants lived that, at the end of its period of government in the 1990s and after seven Housing Ministers, it left them with a £19 billion backlog of repairs.
  Mr. Andrew Turner rose—
  Keith Hill: Oh, gosh! How can I resist the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Turner: Why were so many of those houses under the control of Labour councils? Some Labour-controlled councils, such as that on which I served, successfully introduced exactly that sort of renovation programmes in the 1980s. Why were some Labour authorities so bad, when others were so good?
  Keith Hill: Because those councils were suffering, year on year, from cuts in housing investment under the previous Administration.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister is trying to make a good case out of something that is pretty poor. Will he explain why the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—an all-party Committee—said:
  "more and more people cannot afford to buy or rent a home … more families than ever are in temporary housing … The number of homeless households in temporary accommodation is now the highest ever"?
  1354
  If that is not a damning indictment of the Government's housing programme, I do not know what is. Will he also explain why the Government are building only half the number of affordable houses today as when we left office in 1997?
  Keith Hill: At least we are building houses where they are needed. Of course, under the hon. Gentleman's Administration, large numbers of houses were built at the bottom of the recession, but they were built in places where they were not needed. I suggest that he visit some of our northern cities, where he will observe houses built in the 1990s that are now standing idle because there was never a demand for them in the first place. We are building where the demand is. Admittedly, construction and labour costs are high in those places. I fully confess that it is difficult to acquire the kind of output that we would desire from the new, high levels of investment that we are putting into social housing, but I am delighted to report that we expect the Housing Corporation to produce a 50 per cent. increase in the number of social and affordable homes in the next two years.
  Ms Oona King: Further to what my right hon. Friend says, is he not astonished that many of the houses built by the Conservative party were demolished without ever having been let? Moreover, the Conservatives' solution to the homelessness problem was to take away homeless families' rights to seek temporary accommodation—surely one of the most shameful things that any British Government have ever done?
  Keith Hill: My hon. Friend, who is a great expert in such matters, is absolutely right. In fact, the Government's more liberal interpretation of the homelessness rules has led to an increase in the number of households counted as homeless. Nevertheless, there is good news to report in that direction, too.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Keith Hill: If colleagues will forgive me, I hope to make some progress towards providing further good news. However, as we have not heard an intervention from the minor parties, I will allow the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) to intervene.
  Matthew Green: A couple of minutes ago, the Minister said—I wrote it down exactly—"We are building where the demand is." If that is true, when a local authority requests extra housing allocation, why does he fail to give it?
  Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman alludes to a semi-public exchange that we have had on such matters. I am aware of the pressures in his local authority. As he knows, there have been trade-offs in the regional distribution of social housing, but I am alert to the pressures and, as he also knows, I am not entirely unsympathetic to the case that he is making.
  I draw the attention of the House to the enormous progress that has been made in social housing as a result of the decent homes programme. Let us look at the difference we have made: 650,000 homes with new

  1355
  central heating; 240,000 with new kitchens; and 180,000 with new bathrooms. And today, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced a package of £3 billion to tackle problems in even more homes. A possible 170,000 homes could benefit from that package. That is more than the total number of dwellings in Bristol, which gives an indication of the scale of that commitment.
  That £3 billion package covers 58 new housing improvement schemes, including £1.8 billion for 12 new arm's-length housing management organisations—ALMOs—£1 billion in public-private funding for 37 new housing stock transfer schemes, and £370 million for nine new housing private finance initiative schemes. All those are schemes that local people have chosen for themselves and that have a proven record in delivering decent homes.
  In the three years to 2005–06, the Government will invest a massive £8 billion to improve council housing. That is three times more than the sum that we inherited in 1997. Since 1997, average investment in each council home has increased by 55 per cent. in real terms. Not only have we improved homes for more than 1 million people, but we have given tenants more control over the way that their homes are managed. So the Government need no lessons about housing from the Conservative party.
  Under the last Tory Government, homelessness became a way of life for too many people. Bed-and-breakfast hotels were no longer just holiday venues at the seaside—people began to think that such hotels were an acceptable way of dealing with homelessness. That was particularly shocking, as often families with children were living in inappropriate bed-and-breakfast accommodation for long periods. This week, in addition to today's announcement on decent homes, we have already announced that we have ended the scandal of families having to bring up their children in bed-and-breakfast hotels. I am pleased to say that we have met the target to ensure that no family with children has to live in a bed-and-breakfast hotel for longer than six weeks—down from 11,000 in 2001.
  Mr. Pike: I welcome the good news from the Government. Although it was not mentioned in the Conservative motion or by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)—it is, however, included in our amendment—is it not a fact that the Labour Government are committed to housing renewal projects in areas of low demand such as Burnley and other parts of the country that are experiencing major problems?
  Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I hope to allude to the programme of housing market renewal later. A sum of £500 million has been made available for the regeneration of areas of low housing demand in cities in the north and the north midlands. Earlier, my hon. Friend made an eloquent intervention on the subject, to which he is extremely committed.
  Dr. Iddon: In contrast to the news that my right hon. Friend has just given us, when I was housing chairman in the metropolitan borough of Bolton the Conservatives cut housing resources by a massive 70 per
  1356
  cent. Would my right hon. Friend be surprised if I said that I do not believe what the Opposition spokesmen are saying today?
  Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I am not in the least surprised that he does not believe a word of what the Opposition have said. I have visited Bolton in his company and seen the excellent new investment in the town that has been made as a result of the Labour Government's commitment to housing improvement.
  Mrs. Spelman: I thank the Minister for giving way to me a second time, but how does he answer Shelter's appraisal of his announcement on homelessness? Of course it is good that 4,000 families have been moved out of temporary accommodation, but Shelter argues that the Government have not included in their calculation asylum seekers or families placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by social services departments. The Government have also ignored council and housing association-run hostel accommodation, which is equally unsuitable for families with children.
  Keith Hill: With respect, I am more inclined to trust definitions from local authorities—the figures that I gave were from local authorities—than from Shelter. More to the point, however, the hon. Lady attempted in her speech to create an intellectual construct to defend nimbyism. In the lead-up to the next general election, her party is mounting a defence of nimbyism. She made a rather shallow effort at doing so herself, but she will not get away with it, as she made no commitment to increase the number of homes to deal with the problem of homelessness.
  Jim Knight: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the lack of affordable housing in Dorset and across the south-west. Has he received any representations or constructive suggestions from the Opposition about tackling that problem? All I hear is criticism—I do not hear anything constructive at all.
  Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is right. If I ever get to my peroration, I intend to make that point myself. I have scanned the Conservatives' housing proposals, but there is only one to deal with such problems—it would extend the right to buy to housing associations. The Conservatives make the fascinating proposition that for every two housing association properties that are sold, one new housing association home will be built. The party appears to be concerned about homelessness, to which social housing is the obvious solution. I stand to be corrected, but its proposals are not a recipe for expanding the provision of such housing.
  In the past six weeks, the Government have announced a new £690 million programme for housing essential key workers; a new scheme to turn surplus national health service and Ministry of Defence land into 15,000 new homes; a £150 million programme to turn derelict sites into urgently needed new homes for London; more investment to tackle low demand in South Yorkshire, Oldham, Rochdale and east Lancashire; nearly £500 million for existing arm's-length housing organisations to help improve the lives of thousands of tenants; and more than £3 billion for the

  1357
  Housing Corporation to increase the supply of affordable homes. Again, we need no lessons from the Opposition about housing.
  Under the last Tory Government, rough sleeping began to be regarded as an unavoidable reality. This Government were not prepared to accept that, and we have reduced rough sleeping to well below two thirds of 1998 levels. The number of rough sleepers in 2004 is the lowest ever recorded. Who can forget—I know that Labour Members cannot—that in 1992, 1.2 million households suffered from negative equity, and that between 1990 and 1997 nearly 0.5 million homes were repossessed? Mortgages averaged 11 per cent., hitting a peak of 17 per cent. That was the Tory housing policy. But mortgage rates are now at their lowest level since the 1950s. following an unprecedented period of low and stable interest rates from which home owners throughout the UK have benefited, enabling them to plan for the future with confidence.
  We have heard that the Government apparently have a visceral resistance to greater home ownership, but there are now more home owners than ever before. As Kate Barker pointed out in her recent report, since 1997, 1 million more people now own their own homes. At just over 15 million, England has the largest number of home owners in recorded history, but I accept that we need to do better. We need to build more homes and expand the supply of affordable housing. In contrast to the Tory period of year-on-year cuts in investment, since 1997 we have doubled investment in council housing and new affordable homes. We have unlocked £8.5 billion of private investment through stock transfers to housing associations, and we have invested over £1 billion in key worker housing—three times the previous annual rate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) pointed out, we have at the same time created a £500 million fund to tackle market renewal in areas of low demand for housing. In areas of high demand, we are implementing a £600 million investment programme to create the social and physical infrastructure necessary for housing growth.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Keith Hill: There is a bottomless pit of demand for my attention, and hon. Members will know that I am always conscious of the need for Front. Benchers to keep it short in these brief debates when many other colleagues wish to speak. I cannot resist giving way to my official opposite number, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), but afterwards I must exercise self-restraint.
  Mr. John Hayes: The Minister is, as ever, generous, and I am grateful to him for giving way. He talked about the Barker review and the need to build more houses. One of Kate Barker's recommendations is for a development land tax. Does he support that?
  Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman refers to the planning gain supplement. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that the Government are considering the proposal and that we expect to make a response in 2005.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Minister give way?
  Keith Hill: No.
  Since 1997, as I have said, we have doubled the funding for social housing and supported the creation of 230,000 new affordable homes. We have increased the number of housing association homes from 22,000 a year in 2001 to 29,000 in 2005, but we are determined to do better, and by 2006, the extra investment in affordable homes will increase the number of new housing association homes to over 34,000 a year—a 50 per cent. increase in five years. More than 10,000 key workers in our front-line public services, including health, education and the police, have been helped into home ownership through our starter home initiative. Last month, we announced the new £690 million key worker living scheme, which will help a further 16,500 key worker households into new homes in high demand areas by 2006.
  Ms Buck rose—
  Keith Hill: I cannot resist giving way to my highly knowledgeable colleague.
  Ms Buck: There has been a glaring omission from my right hon. Friend's speech, which I feel it necessary to correct. He has made no mention of that embodiment of Conservative housing policy demonstrated by Dame Shirley Porter and Westminster city council Conservative members. On the subject of housing investment, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Labour councillors past and present who have pursued Dame Shirley and her colleagues for 15 years, and who last week saw their pressure bear fruit when Dame Shirley agreed to repay £12.3 million, the balance of which will be invested in new housing opportunities in Westminster, with no thanks whatever to the Conservative party?
  Keith Hill: I thought I would save that morsel for my hon. Friend. I am delighted to congratulate those Labour councillors. I also congratulate her and other hon. Members on their pursuit of justice in the matter.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Keith Hill: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), then to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), and I might give way again as I approach the end of my observations.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the Minister kindly for giving way. He spoke about the right to buy and home ownership, but he seems to be falling into the same trap as the Conservatives did in the 1980s, by putting the right to own a property above all else. Does he agree that one of the reasons why people seek to buy property is as an investment, rather than as a home as we would

  1359
  expect? It is their seeking an investment that leads to house price inflation, which is the reason for the lack of affordability of homes. Ought he not to be tackling that?
  Keith Hill: As the hon. Gentleman went on, I began to regret giving way to him. In so far as I understand his point—
  Richard Younger-Ross rose—
  Keith Hill: I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to clarify further—heaven forfend. As I understand it, he was making a point about people's desire to use property for investment purposes. That is not something that the Government wish to challenge, but we are taking firm action through the Housing Bill to put a stop to the scandal of the commercial exploitation of the right to buy, which is wreaking such havoc not only in some of our major urban areas, but quite widely throughout the country.
  Mr. Kerry Pollard: Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to sort out the West of Stevenage development, where several thousand houses were due to be built many years ago? Not one house has been built, and that is causing blight across the whole of Hertfordshire. My constituency, St. Albans, has been jam-packed because of the need for housing. That has been going on for a long time because of the intransigence of Tory-controlled Hertfordshire county council.
  Keith Hill: Well, there you go. My hon. Friend's point is well taken. It is symptomatic of the problems that we face, and it is why the Opposition are trying to find a way of justifying such continued intransigence against the obvious need for more building.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Keith Hill: I regret that I cannot give way any further at present.
  Since 1997, 900,000 new homes have been built in England, but again I say that we need to do better. That is why I am pleased to report that we have begun to see an increase in housing supply, with 14 per cent. more new homes built in London and the south-east in 2002–03 than in the year before, and we are supporting that new build with huge new investments. Total housing capital investment has tripled, with capital allocations rising to £5 billion in 2005–06, compared with £1.61 billion in 1997–98.
  The new homes that we need must, however, be in sustainable communities. In planning for more homes in areas of high demand, we must avoid the mistakes of the Tory past when too many soulless estates were built at the expense of creating neighbourhoods where people want to live and build a future for themselves, their family and their community. The £22 billion sustainable communities plan that we launched in February 2003 marked a step change in our approach to housing and communities—a step change in approach not just to the
  1360
  provision of more affordable homes, but to improving existing homes and creating communities that people are proud to live in.
  We have identified growth areas in London and the south-east, and in the south midlands. Our long-term plans for the Thames gateway and the other growth areas—Milton Keynes and the south midlands, Ashford, London-Stansted-Cambridge Peterborough—will provide for sustainable communities built mainly on brownfield land along major transport corridors, such as the channel tunnel rail link. Combined with London, those growth areas have the potential to deliver an extra 200,000 homes, above the 930,000 planned, and more than 300,000 jobs by 2016. However, I emphasise that the communities plan is not just about growth in the south-east.
  Bob Spink: The Minister speaks a lot about communities. Does he believe in listening to the voice of local communities such as mine in Castle Point, which he visited a few weeks ago? He stood on the beautiful green land at the west of Canvey Island, surveyed the wonderful wildlife habitat there, and told the local paper that the best way of conserving that was to build on it. Does he not know how silly he looked in the local press and how much damage he did to the local Labour party on Canvey Island, which will now lose every seat in the local elections?
  Keith Hill: That is another object lesson in not believing anything one reads in the newspapers.
  I was speaking about our commitment to the north of England and the towns in the north midlands. There is a new confidence and energy in many of our northern towns and cities, but more remains to be done. We want to quicken the pace of change and spread growth and success beyond the core cities into the wider community. That is why we have set up a specific taskforce working to create a long-term vision for economic growth in the north of England—a "northern way". This work has the potential to change the entire perception of the north from regions in decline requiring regeneration to regions of imagination, innovation and growth. We also know, however, that in some parts of the north and the midlands where traditional industries have declined, demand for housing has collapsed and thousands of homes lie abandoned. Around 1 million homes in some 120 local authorities are affected by low demand.
  Turning around those communities will require a long-term commitment. That is why we have created a new three-year £500 million market renewal fund to start revitalising nine of the worst low-demand areas. We have linked housing renewal with regeneration programmes worth more than £850 million in the nine pathfinders. In addition, we have put in place a £500 million 10-year regeneration programme targeted at coalfield communities, many of which also suffer from low demand. The communities plan is not just about dealing with growth in the south-east and low demand in parts of the north; it is a national programme to improve housing end communities.
  A good quality local environment is vital to a sustainable community. That is why we have increased local authority spending on creating a cleaner, safer, greener environment in our cities and towns from £1.9 billion in 2001–02 to £2.2 billion in 2002–03. We are

  1361
  putting extra resources into improving our streets, parks and public places and making better design a key driver for change. We are taking action to tackle street crime and antisocial behaviour, and we are investing in neighbourhood support schemes such as Sure Start, and the children's fund.
  Under the sustainable communities plan we are providing an extra £201 million over three years to help transform the local environment, including a new £89 million so-called "liveability fund" for 75 projects to improve streets, parks and public spaces. We are providing £70 million for community-led groups, such as Groundwork, to improve the local environment, and £91 million for neighbourhood and street wardens in more than 500 communities. More than 3,000 wardens are now in place, and the latest study, which was published last month, shows a 28 per cent. drop in crime in neighbourhood warden areas.
  I remind the House that this Government have added 25,000 hectares to the green belt and ensured that more than 60 per cent. of all new housing is built on brownfield sites. Under this Government, the density of house building has been increased, so more homes are being built on less land. The Conservative Government unleashed out-of-town shopping malls, until their Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), had to step in to put a stop to such developments. Under the Conservative Government, only 50 per cent. of new housing was built on brownfield sites, which contrasts with the 64 per cent. figure achieved under this Government. If we were still building at the density achieved under the Tories, massive swathes of concrete would have been poured into the countryside.
  This Government have nothing to be ashamed of, and I am proud to set before the House our record on creating sustainable communities. As one of my hon. Friends said, we have heard a string of criticisms from the Tories. We understand that the hon. Member for Meriden attempted to create an intellectual construct for nimbyism—she failed—but what are the Opposition proposing? What is Tory housing policy? The House will be delighted to hear that I have checked the website, which is called, "Conservatives.com—Trusting People". The answer is that the policy is "under review"—it appears that the people must trust the Conservatives just that little bit longer. But why wait? The shadow Chancellor has spoken, and we all know that he has freezes and cuts in mind, which are exactly what the hon. Member for Meriden is considering, because the bottom line to her speech was a cut in investment in housing and regeneration.
  The Tory party's spending plans would mean a £400 million cut in the housing budget in 2007–08 by real-terms comparison with 2005–06. What would a £400 million cut mean? It would mean halving the entire investment programme for decent homes in the west midlands, which is the area represented by the hon. Member for Meriden. It would mean cuts in funding for key worker housing; it would mean cuts in the budget for tackling the problems of low-demand housing; it would mean cuts in the budget for helping the homeless; and it would mean cuts in the budget to help increase new housing in the Thames gateway And other growth areas.
  1362
  The truth is that we have been there before with the Tories. They increased the number of council homes in need of urgent repair to more than 2 million; we halved it. They increased mortgage rates; we halved them. They doubled the rate of repossessions and negative equity; we reduced them to close to zero. They doubled the number of homeless families with children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation; we reduced it to zero. They doubled the number of people sleeping rough on our streets; we cut it by two thirds.
  We doubled investment for affordable housing; the Conservatives halved it. We doubled investment for council homes; they halved it. We doubled investment for key worker housing; and, under their spending plans, they would halve it. We are making decent homes and sustainable communities happen. Don't let the Tories wreck it again.
  1.43 pm
  Matthew Green: I start by apologising on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who was to have spoken today; he has a stinker of a cold and has asked me to step in.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on her first speech in her new role, and I wish her a longer occupation of that position than some of her predecessors. While it is true that I have only been speaking on ODPM matters for 18 months now, three Conservative Members have occupied the lead position on the subject during that period, and there were seven different Conservative Housing Ministers in post during the 1990s. Perhaps the Conservative party do not have a housing policy because those responsible were not in post long enough to invent one.
  We shall support the Conservative motion, which does not contain anything with which we disagree, although I must say that the motion leaves a lot out, and I suspect that if the Conservatives had a policy to enumerate, we would not support it. Given what the hon. Member for Meriden said, however, we shall support the motion.
  I shall touch on a few of the reasons why we shall support the motion before offering some positive alternatives and trying to fill the vacuum left by the hon. Member for Meriden, who failed completely. I expected a policy, but her speech did not contain one, although she rightly highlighted some of the problems and I agree with her criticisms of the Barker review and the assumptions on which it is based.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on most of his remarks on the Barker review in last week's Adjournment debate, and I agree with his assessment of the review's fundamental flaws. The Barker review adopts a top-down approach and examines the housing problem from a national economic viewpoint, but it fails to understand what drives house price inflation and affordability. For instance, it assumes that house price inflation is driven by the economic engine of London and the south-east, but house price inflation in areas such as the Pennines, Cumbria, the Welsh Marches and Cornwall is faster than that in London and the south-east. That process is not driven by high wages; it is driven by people selling up in London and the south-east and retiring to such areas.

  1363
  The Barker review's flimsy assessment only scratches the surface. Bearing in mind that the ODPM did not commission the report, I hope that it does not rely on it too much. The Treasury sometimes foists schemes on the ODPM—for example, the planning zones that the Chancellor wanted to include in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill—and I hope that the ODPM does not take the Barker review too much to heart, and that it uses the statistics before moving on to more productive ground.
  Mr. Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the major thrust of the Barker review, which is that lack of supply is a major contributory factor to house price inflation?
  Matthew Green: Lack of supply is one of the contributory factors. The problem with the Barker review is that it considers lack of supply to be the sole driver for house price inflation.
  Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Matthew Green: I gave way and answered the question.
  Mr. David Drew: I do not want to repeat my debate with the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), whom I am pleased to see in his seat. Does the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) agree that the Barker review does not address the rural dynamic? Although the housing market in rural areas is sensitive to supply, supply is not the only factor, and demand management is also important.
  Matthew Green: I could not agree more, and the hon. Gentleman makes a point that I touched on earlier. I do not want to consider the Barker review in too much detail because it was debated last week. It would be nice to have a fuller debate on the subject, but this is obviously a wide-ranging debate on housing, and I want to address some of the other issues.
  The Minister bears on the right point when he suggests that the Conservatives are attempting to excuse nimbysim when they say, "We need more houses as long as they are not in our areas." To be taken seriously on housing, one must show that one accepts the need for more housing in high-demand areas, which include parts of London and the south-east as well as areas such as the south-west and the Marches.
  The Conservatives are right to point to the problem of empty homes, because the Government, as they would probably acknowledge, have not done enough work on bringing empty homes back into use. However, the Conservatives did not offer a solution, and neither did the Minister. If he is working on that, it would have been nice to hear about it.
  Ms Oona King: If the issue of empty homes is such a problem, why do the hon. Gentleman's new-found bedfellows not support the important approach that the Government are taking on compulsory leasing? In a
  1364
  recent consultation, virtually all the respondents—150, bar one—agreed with that policy. Does the hon. Gentleman take a different view?
  Matthew Green: In fact, our amendment, which was not selected, supports compulsory leasing. Although the Government have consulted on that, they have not yet come out firmly in favour of it—I hope that they will do so. There is a policy vacuum from the Conservatives, as I said earlier. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I cannot tolerate an exchange going on across the Chamber while the hon. Gentleman is addressing the House.
  Matthew Green: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Conservatives are right to highlight the affordability of owner-occupied housing, as well as the supply of social housing, although that does not feature so prominently in their motion. Affordability is a problem not only in London and the south-east, although it is always addressed in those terms, but all over the country—even in the centre of cities such as Liverpool and Newcastle, where 10 miles down the road there may be a low-demand area. It is a complicated situation that cannot be summed up by saying, "Down here in the south-east nobody can afford property, but everywhere else it is cheap and everyone can rush to buy it." The picture is complex and fluid around the country.
  One issue that the Conservatives did not mention—indeed, it was barely mentioned at all, although the Minister touched on it in passing—is that of the Government's commitment to the key worker scheme, which provides £1 billion to enable key workers to buy houses. On the face of it, that appears to be an attractive quick-fix scheme, but I challenge the Government on whether it is a sensible use of £1 billion. Giving people money to allow them to purchase houses is an inflationary measure, because it puts money into the housing market and pushes prices up further. It might be necessary for the next year or two until other solutions can be found, but it can only be a stop-gap, because it will serve to further the problem in the long term.
  Mr. Mark Field: Surely the core issue, particularly in London and the south-east, is that national pay bargaining, which applies in many of the public sectors, means that our workers find that they are massively underpaid, which in turn affects constituents who rely on public services. I appreciate that the measure is inflationary, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that that problem goes much deeper than that? For example, many key workers, especially in London communities, work in the private as well as the public sector.
  Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has a point, but only just. One stops national pay bargaining at one's peril, because it is frankly unacceptable to suggest that someone doing a job in Shropshire may have a different value from someone doing the same job in, say, Milton Keynes. In many areas, adjustments such as London weighting are made for the cost of living. However, that

  1365
  issue is bigger than the subject of this debate: it is about shifting jobs into the economies of areas other than London and the south-east.
  David Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman support the conclusions of the Lyons review, which suggests that major Government Departments should be relocated out of the capital? Does my hon. Friend, as I might call him, think that we should have a few of those in Shropshire?
  Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to find that I entirely agree with him. Telford or Shrewsbury would be excellent places in which to relocate a Department, because they have beautiful countryside around them and lots of highly skilled, educated workers who are ready to work. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will persuade his colleagues of his case and that the electorate in Telford will look forward to the success that he personally brings to them.
  Hywel Williams: May I commend to the hon. Gentleman our experience in Wales in relation to part-ownership schemes, which have been massively over-subscribed and very successful in the short term, but have an inflationary effect on local markets in the long term?
  Matthew Green: Such schemes can have all sorts of effects on local housing markets.
  I want to make some positive comments. I have had my bit of fun with the Conservatives, so I will leave them alone for a little while. They are very gentle, tender people these days: one cannot push them too much, or they get upset.
  The problem of empty homes can be addressed by compulsory leasing, but if any voluntary scheme is to have teeth, there must be a fall-back position to guard against a situation in which somebody fails to bring one of their properties into use. I do not believe that the fallback position should be compulsory purchase, as has been mooted at various times, because the person who owns the property should have the right to retain that ownership. Compulsory leasing is the sensible way forward. I am glad to see Conservative Front Benchers nodding, because a year ago that would not have been the case. Perhaps the change in Front Benchers means that we can achieve cross-party unity.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to introduce compulsory leasing into the Housing Bill before it completes its passage. If he were really committed to such a measure, he would ensure that it reached the statute book as soon as possible. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will be able to confirm that that is the Government's intention.
  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Sue Doughty.
  Mrs. Brooke: It is Annette Brooke, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Lady. I think I have made that mistake in the past, and I must humble myself for having made it again.
  Mrs. Brooke: Despite the very welcome announcement about children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, does my hon. Friend agree, given that Shelter has identified that more than 1 million children are living in bad conditions to which they wake up every morning and which affect their health, education and future prospects; that the cross-party fire that we have heard is a diversion from the real issues; and that we should be putting forward positive solutions?
  Matthew Green: I agree with my hon. Friend. Moreover, many of those children live in overcrowded conditions. If the Government are prepared to change the definition of overcrowding to a more sensible one, which will inevitably mean that the numbers of people in overcrowded conditions increase overnight, we will not use that as a party political issue. I make that pledge because we want the definition to be changed. I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will support that on behalf of the Conservatives and that we can achieve a consensus, because will be hard for the Government to make the change if they think that they will come under attack as a result.
  I want to consider the right to buy, a principle that we support, although parts of the country experience difficulties with it. To put it simply, in an area of low demand, there is no difficulty, but problems arise in areas of high demand. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) partly recognised that when he exempted rural areas from the similar right-to-acquire scheme. However, he failed to do that for right to buy. I believe that the local council is the best body to judge whether it has a detrimental effect on the amount of social housing stock in a given area.
  If the Government genuinely believe in local points of view, why do they not trust local councils to decide whether there should be a rebate on the right-to-buy scheme, thereby providing for local variation throughout the country, rather than having a Minister in London determine the areas where the rebate should be varied? That would show a genuine commitment on the part of the Minister for Housing and Planning to local variations to suit local needs. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that we need more local variation to tackle affordability.
  We also need to provide more stepping stones for people to get from renting in the social or private sector to home ownership. To do that, we need to put rungs back on the ladder, because the gap between the rented and owner-occupied sectors is widening rapidly. There are few means whereby people can ascend the ladder, so I hope that Ministers will consider what I have called the right to invest.
  The right to invest is the right of a tenant—of a council house or a registered social landlord—to purchase a share of the property. The scheme resembles shared equity but starts from the premise that the tenant is renting and then wishes to purchase a share. Tenants cannot purchase the whole property, which therefore remains in the social sector, but the scheme would allow them to translate rent into mortgage, build up equity in the property and eventually get on to the owner-occupier ladder.
  Mr. Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman outlines an inventive scheme. Clearly, we cannot make policy here

  1367
  on the hoof, but in poverty-stricken areas—for example, in parts of London—the lack of capital in the hands of some of the poorest people prevents them from starting their own businesses. That applies especially to those who have few qualifications. I urge the hon. Gentleman to urge the Minister to ensure that we consider innovative schemes to provide an allowance for individuals to have a small asset base—the liquid capital that could enable them to develop businesses.
  Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has made some sensible comments.
  David Wright: May I ask the hon. Gentleman for some details of his suggested policy? How would it work? Does he envisage the local authority having to buy back the equity stake in the property?
  Matthew Green: That is exactly what I am suggesting. I am happy to discuss the detail with the hon. Gentleman, but not now. I have discussed the scheme with registered social landlords and they support it. Although they opposed the Conservative right-to-buy proposal for registered social landlord property, they would be happy with a right to invest. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Telford has much experience of the subject and I would be more than happy to have a long discussion with him—
  David Wright rose—
  Matthew Green: But not now, because I am conscious of the time.
  I want to consider the affordability of home ownership. There has been no mention of the price of land, which drives new house prices in particular. Fifteen years ago, developers worked roughly on the thirds principle: property value consisted of one third the cost of the land, one third the cost of building and one third profit. That is to put it in crude terms. Nowadays, the average house builder considers that the cost of the land will be 55 per cent. to 60 per cent. of the final sale price. The profit goes not to the house builder but to landowners, who discover—perhaps through a local plan—that what were nice farmers' fields have suddenly become building land. In the south-east, that means an overnight movement from £3,000 an acre to more than £1 million in land value. That is the driver of property prices.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is making a sensible speech. I hope that he will deal with the point that affordability is essentially a people-centred issue. Targets for building a certain number of houses that one considers "affordable" are nonsense, because the houses could become more or less affordable as a result of the variables that the hon. Gentleman stressed. Affordability is about making affordable houses available to those who need them; it is not about a static housing stock. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that.
  Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman makes some good points.
  1368
  I want to refer to a proposal in relation to which there has been an exchange of letters between the Minister and me—a proposal concerning what Liberal Democrats call the intermediate tier of housing. Clearly, I have not explained it sufficiently well in writing because the officials do not understand what I am writing about, so if hon. Members will bear with me, I hope to elucidate the matter a little more.
  By an intermediate tier of housing, we mean that a house is completely owned by someone who buys it at a price that is capped down. To qualify to buy it, the person must fulfil specific requirements. For example, in a rural area, the criteria might include living and working locally; in London, the person might have to be a key worker. The scheme has started in Shropshire, where it is used by people who live and work locally and would otherwise be priced out of the rural housing market.
  Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Matthew Green: No, I should like to continue. In Shropshire, the price of a typical property would be realised at £90,000 whereas the average price for that same three-bed property would be closer to £200,000. The key point is that the property is cheap not only the first time it is bought but remains cheap. That happens through the use of a section 106 agreement in the planning arrangements to keep the house affordable. An agreement is made about the amount by which its value can grow. It can be sold only to the same categories of people. It is a variation of a scheme—the agricultural workers dwelling scheme—that has existed for a long time. It is not new science but it needs to be applied much more widely
  The scheme can be used, as often happens in rural areas, in exception sites, which allow someone to build an affordable home for themselves if they own a plot of land. It is easy to build for £90,000 if one owns the plot of land, because the land price has been taken out of the equation. The scheme could be used to provide extra affordable homes in London and the south-east—for example, in the Thames gateway. If the Government increased the figure for affordability to 50 per cent. on sites of two or more dwellings, it would not need to be registered local landlord property. It could be 25 per cent. registered social landlord property and 25 per cent. intermediate tier or capped price home ownership property. Under the latter scheme, the builder could build the house and sell it with an incorporated build profit but not a land profit. The other 25 per cent. would be handed over to the registered social landlord sector, as currently happens. The other 50 per cent. of houses on the site would be sold on the open market and could fund the other schemes.
  There would be an issue with existing land banks for house builders, and I have discussed that with the House Builders Federation. If the Government gave a commitment to introduce the scheme in two or three years, it would not be a problem because house builders could build on their existing land banks in that time—the new policy would give them an incentive to do so—and they would acquire new land in the knowledge that the value of the properties would mean that they were forced to pay a lower price for the land. The hit would therefore be taken by the person who believed that he

  1369
  had a £3,000-an-acre field, subsequently thought that it was worth £1 million an acre but discovered that it was worth only £500,000 an acre after all. That person is still doing well, but perhaps not as well as he thought.
  The scheme would mean that we could get affordable homes through the planning system without its costing a penny of Government money. It means that the houses stay affordable, using section 106 agreements. I hope that that is a better explanation than the one I provided in writing, and that the Government will take it seriously. Some but not all Conservatives in Shropshire support the scheme. It could gain cross-party support and be a major way forward in dealing with the housing market. The Barker report does not mention it. I am not surprised because it does not go into that sort of detail.
  I hope that, after my bit of fun at the start of my speech, I have tried to be as positive as possible. Housing is one of the biggest problems that face the country. It needs solutions and I hope that some of those that I have suggested will find favour with the Government. If not, they should be prepared to make way for someone who is prepared to introduce some genuine policies.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches applies from now. However, such has been the time taken by Front-Bench speeches that hon. Members should consider, with the interests of their colleagues in mind, whether they can limit their speeches to less than 15 minutes.
  2.9 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: Listening to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) introducing the motion on behalf of the Opposition, I almost felt that life in housing had begun in 1997. It is incredible that she made no mention of anything that preceded that date, or of the housing crisis that this Government inherited.
  To put that crisis in a local context, at the beginning of the 1980s my own city of Sheffield had a major rolling programme of house modernisation in the local authority sector. That came to a standstill because the funding simply dried up. New house building by the local council was also stopped. We had a pioneering enveloping scheme for putting right the structures of private sector homes in some of our poorest communities. It was started in Birmingham, taken up by Sheffield and stopped by the Tory Government. We had a unique housing partnership scheme in conjunction with local builders, the local authority and housing associations that built 1,000 new homes, but the Government brought in specific legislation to stop the scheme. Building on brownfield sites did not happen, because the builders knew that the Government wanted them to build on green fields, and one green field after another was built on.
  The only policy that we had at that time was council house sales. The one housing policy in which the Conservative Government believed was the right to buy. There was a saving to be made there because, although at the beginning the Government said to the local authorities, "Sell your council houses, and you can have the money to invest in your own stock," restrictions
  1370
  were soon introduced and the amount of money that could be used for reinvestment went down to 20 per cent. of the proceeds from the sales.
  Sheffield also had an innovative programme to implement new heating schemes in local authority homes. We helped 10,000 homes a year for three years on a leasing arrangement until the Government legislated to stop the scheme and brought it to an end. One measure after another was introduced by the Government to restrict the ability of local authorities to invest in their rented stock and in private sector homes in the poorest communities.
  By the time the Tory Government left office, the total local authority spending on housing in Sheffield was down to £20 million. That was less than a third, in money terms, of what had been available to the local authority at the beginning of the 1980s. That is why we had a housing crisis in 1997, and the hon. Lady made no mention of it whatever. She said that there were certain problems today. Absolutely; we all see rising house prices as a problem. It is a problem for first-time buyers and young couples; we all acknowledge that. There is cross-party agreement on it. Some of us might also share her concerns about an imbalance in growth and prosperity between the north and south of this country. There is an issue there that has to be addressed. The Select Committee, which I chaired a few months ago, made some criticisms of regeneration policies, and pointed out the need to simplify them and to pass more responsibility back to local authorities and local communities.
  However, when the hon. Lady got down to the key issues, all that she had to offer the House was a programme of consultation. She made not one positive suggestion on what we should do about rising house prices or about the north-south divide. She recognised the problems but did not offer a single policy solution. People will draw their own conclusions from that. No doubt there is consultation going on, no doubt there is a review, but that was all that we were offered.
  Let us turn to this Government's record. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will not expect me to be totally uncritical, but let us recognise that the decent homes standard has been introduced by this Government. They are the first Government to recognise that council tenants have a right to a certain standard of housing, which is an important move forward. It is also a brave move, because the Government can be judged against the very clear targets that they have set. I shall not go into too much detail on this, because I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that a Select Committee report on this issue is about to be published that might say one or two things about the precise level at which the decent homes target has been set. Nevertheless, there is a recognition that the principle is a good one, and the Government should be congratulated on it.
  The Government have achieved a step change in spending levels and investment in social rented housing, particularly in local authority areas, and they should be congratulated on that as well. This involves money through stock transfers and arm's-length management organisations, or ALMOs. I would ask my right hon. Friend please not to give up on the right of tenants to chose their own local authority as the best organisation to manage their homes, and when tenants have made

  1371
  that choice, will he also please try to find a way of allowing money to come into the local authority to bring those homes up to a decent standard as well? The Select Committee has virtually ruled that out, but in other areas of local government, the prudential guidelines on borrowing can be used to allow borrowing against future income streams to deliver improvements in infrastructure. That is not allowed for council housing, and the Minister should consider the possibility of allowing future rental income streams to be used as a basis for borrowing under the prudential guidelines, which would mean that when tenants chose to remain with a local authority, council housing could be brought up to a decent standard.
  When tenants choose ALMOs as a way forward, I hope that the Minister will give a clear undertaking that the money will be forthcoming to fund those schemes. If tenants go to the trouble of choosing an ALMO, as many have in Sheffield through a series of neighbourhood consultations, and if more and more local authorities go down that route, there must be some certainty that money will continue to flow into ALMOs so that those houses will be brought up to the decent homes level. My right hon. Friend will also want to consider the idea of building more socially rented homes through ALMOs. They are a vehicle that could start to deliver new homes in many areas of the country, to add to those that will be available through housing associations.
  We should strongly welcome the Government's approach to housing renewal initiatives in our poorer areas through the pathfinder projects, particularly those involving houses in the private rented sector. In my constituency, the South Yorkshire pathfinder is doing good work and coming up with innovative ideas. The Government should be congratulated on telling the pathfinders to go out and look at the problems and come up with the solutions that are required at local level. They have not been prescriptive from the centre, which is also welcome. However, the cost of some of the proposals are going to be far greater than the Government have budgeted for, and the Minister will need to persuade the Treasury—he will have a lot of evidence on which to base his case—that more money should be put into the pathfinder projects to make them work.
  The Government should also be congratulated on PPG3. It is a major breakthrough to be able to stand up and say that we are now determined that more and more new homes will be built on brownfield sites. I have had arguments in the past over the unitary development plan in Sheffield when builders in one part of my constituency wanted to build on greenfield sites and the local community did not want it, while in another area, the builders did not want to build on the brownfield sites when that was what the local community wanted.
  It is interesting that builders and landowners are now beginning to consider the possibility that the Government might be serious, and to bring forward more proposals for house building on brownfield sites. One reason that we have not yet seen the increase in house building that we want to see is that it takes time for the industry to adapt to changes of policy. The industry needs to understand that the Government are
  1372
  serious about the brownfield site issue, and that PPG3 is here for good. I am just beginning to see examples in Sheffield of builders putting forward major long-term proposals for more house building on brownfield sites, and the Government should be congratulated on taking that initiative.
  The Minister was right to poke a little fun at the hon. Lady for the nimbyism that she effectively put forward as a policy. Part of what she seemed to be saying was, "We don't want more houses next to people in our constituencies who might get a bit upset and not vote for us at the next election." The issue of new house building is a difficult one. We need more new house building in the south-east; I think that it is inevitable. We must recognise that and get it right. The amount of public sector infrastructure investment required will be very great indeed, in terms of sewerage, water and transport, to make the new communities properly sustainable.
  We must also remember that we need to strike a balance between the north and the south. The Deputy Prime Minister's initiative in looking at the new growth area in the north is very interesting. Again, it will need a great deal of backing from the Government, as well as from the local communities. If it is to happen, however, there will need to be a switch of infrastructure expenditure to the north. Current plans for transport infrastructure mostly involve investment going to the south-east. With the exception of the west coast main line, there is very little indeed going to the north to support the Deputy Prime Minister's plans. That is something that we will have to address.
  We shall probably never bring back to the coalfield communities next to Sheffield the amount of industry and jobs needed to sustain them. That does not mean that the local communities cannot remain there, or that we do not have to invest in better housing for them. We must ensure that there are better transport links to Sheffield, Leeds and other cities, so that people can live in their communities and commute easily to their workplaces. That is probably the reality, but we need to consider how the infrastructure will be developed, and where the money will go, to enable us to have that development in the north as well. We must not fall into the trap whereby, because there is lots of growth in one part of the country, we put in lots of infrastructure to support that, but do not invest in other areas where growth probably is not happening, but where such investment will create opportunities for growth in the future. That is very important.
  I have two final points about which I want the Minister to think carefully. It is right that we consider ways to try to speed up the amount of house building going on. I know that there is a temptation to move to more system building, but please let us be cautious. Please let us be absolutely certain that we have got the systems right. In my constituency, we are starting to demolish system-built properties on Scowerdons Farm. Weaklands and Newstead, which were built in the 1970s. They were lovely homes when they were built, with nice space standards, and people liked living in them, but they do not like the water coming in. The cost of putting that problem right after only 30 years is so great that demolition is the only answer. Please let us make it clear that we do not want those problems again. If we are to have system building, we must be absolutely certain about future maintenance costs and the ability of

  1373
  the maintenance industry to carry out repairs at a reasonable cost in the future. Those are real problems, which we must address.
  I welcome the Government's move to examine one of the biggest problems: quality. They are addressing quality issues as well as quantity—quality issues were forgotten about for 18 years—in terms of licensing houses in multiple occupation. That is included in the Housing Bill, which we will discuss next week, and I ask the Minister to consider again the standards and definition of homes that will be included in the compulsory licensing arrangement. Please let us not rule out the possibility of including two-storey homes in that definition, which we will debate further next week.
  The Government inherited a housing crisis, but they have made significant steps forward. There are some matters of concern, as I have said, and some lessons to be learned, but the Government have put housing clearly back on the political agenda and have begun to reverse 18 years of continuous decline. They should be congratulated on that.
  2.22 pm
  Mr. Archie Norman: I am delighted to have a second bite of the cherry on this issue, having had a chance last week to speak in a constructive debate on housing in Westminster Hall. I am particularly delighted because it will also give the Minister a second bite of the cherry. In doing so, I hope that she will apply her razor-sharp intellect to the serious critique that has been advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House, both of the Barker report and of current Government housing policy. That need not be a partisan or party issue, as many of the points that have been made are not party political or ideological. I hope that she will improve on the contribution of the Minister of State, which was jocular and peppered with facts designed to support the Government's record. In his levity, however, he obscured, to put it politely, any depth of meaning. That contrasted sharply with the serious and substantial contributon from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), in which he advanced constructive ideas and much with which I could agree.
  First, this debate is about whether there is an overall housing shortage—the central contention of the Barker report, which, incidentally, was hardly mentioned in the Minister of State's opening remarks. That has also been the underpinning idea of the Government's policy, which is that centrally driven housing targets should cascade down through the regions. Secondly, if there is a housing shortage, what is the nature of the shortage, where does it arise and what is its local context? Thirdly, what are the implications for Government policy?
  I shall first address the overall shortage, which is absolutely central to the Barker report. Kate Barker's thesis was that insufficient houses are being built, that the desirable objective of Government policy is to depress the rate of increase in house prices and that, to achieve that, more houses need to be built. Clearly, her contention is that we can build our way out of house price inflation. That is not critically examined in the report, and it is a highly contentious assertion with which few academic economists would agree.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and the hon. Member for Ludlow made the point that building our way out of house price inflation
  1374
  is difficult, not least because only 1 per cent. of the total housing stock is built every year. It is clear that parts of the country with housing surpluses also experience high house price inflation, which suggests that other forces drive the rate of inflation. We all know that those forces are more likely to be interest rates, because housing has become a financial asset, the rate of increase in real wages and the level of unemployment. Those facts determine the rate of increase in house prices, not the number of new houses built nationally.
  A further important point is that the objective of Government policy should not be to depress the price of houses or house price inflation; it should be to reduce the volatility of house prices. The Minister of State referred to the period of negative equity, to which other Members also referred. If we had built more houses at that time, we would simply have created more negative equity and more volatility in house prices, not less. The idea that, with a long time lag, we can somehow build our way out of this problem is complete nonsense and a serious mistake in Government thinking.
  It is important to look at the data on which the Barker projections are based—the household survey and projections that were completed in 1996. The critique of that survey is, first, that the 2001 census showed that approximately 900,000 fewer people were in the country than had been anticipated in the projections, and that there were many fewer households, which at a stroke undermined the integrity of the future household projections and determination of housing demand; and, secondly, that a study conducted by Europe Economics, which was included in the Campaign to Protect Rural England's submissions to Barker, demonstrated that we have a surplus of houses in Britain, taken in aggregate, not a deficit. That is not to say that there are not scarcities locally—of course there are in certain types of houses. It is important to recognise, however, that, in the country as a whole, we have 3.4 per cent. more houses than households, and that the figure has increased from 2.4 per cent. 10 years ago. Therefore, it is not a national problem, capable of being treated, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, with national solutions, but a local problem, and it is related particularly to the character of demand and the changing demographics of Britain.
  When discussing this subject, people tend to take the household projections as gospel. If we examine the figures from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on future housing demand, we see that the growth in the number of households in Britain is driven not by a rising population, although there is some net increase because of immigration, but by the changing nature of that demand. The biggest single force in the changing nature of that demand is the growth of single person households. Most of that growth is accounted for not by young people who want to live alone, although they account for some of it, or by single parent families, although they too account for some of it—curiously, household projections suggest that there will be no increase in the number of single parent families—but by elderly people living on their own. According to the projections, the driving need in this country over the next 10 years is to adapt our housing stock to the requirements of elderly people.
  Our current house building achievement, however, is a rapid increase in the number of houses being built for families, most of which, like it or not, are executive

  1375
  homes in the south-east for people who can afford to move out of the cities into the suburbs and countryside. In 2003, only 7 per cent. of the new homes built were one-bedroomed homes. By contrast, 63 per cent.—two thirds—were three or four-bedroomed homes. That represents a total mismatch between what we are building and the future needs of Britain, which is at the heart of the national housing problem. It illustrates the fact that repeating the dogma that we must construct more houses to build our way out of house price inflation and impose centrally driven housing targets on the regions of Britain is complete folly, and will not address the real problems raised by Members on both sides of the House in this debate and in last week's.
  Andrew Selous: I am fascinated by my hon. Friend's arguments. The biggest shortage facing my local housing authority is of larger properties: demand is very much at the family end. Does my hon. Friend find that in his area the demand tends to come from older people wanting one-bedroom properties?
  Mr. Norman: Of course there is demand for larger homes and family homes in some parts of Britain. In others, there is demand for accommodation for elderly or young people. All demand is local. It needs to be locally defined, and local authorities should be obliged to meet local needs. This is a hard problem to solve nationally, and not one that is susceptible of national, global solutions imposed on regional authorities.
  I want to say something about affordable and social housing. In all fairness, I should redress the balance following the speech by the Minister of State. The Government's record is encouraging in some areas but not in others. Given the partisan nature of the Minister's speech, we should have a few facts on the table.
  First, although investment in poor-quality housing has increased in some areas—I generally welcome the pathfinder initiatives, for instance—there has been a 112 per cent. increase in the number of people in temporary accommodation under this Government. That is a serious problem for those people, which cannot necessarily be solved by the building of more houses. I know that some of it is caused by immigration and other factors.
  Secondly, there are twice as many people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation as there were when the Government came to power. Of course we are pleased that families with children are now moved out of such accommodation, but this too is a serious problem, and Members in all parts of the House should acknowledge that it needs to be solved.
  Thirdly, there has been a 46 per cent. decline in building by social landlords—not an increase, as the Minister implied. All Members are concerned about affordability, and the fact that we are building fewer affordable homes should not be trumpeted as a success—although the Minister suggested that it should—but should be recognised as an embarrassment.
  A number of speakers have observed that this is a local issue. It is, in fact, most acutely present in the urban areas of Britain. If we can be said to have a
  1376
  problem relating to housing and lack of opportunity, it can generally be found in the urban centres of the midlands and north. We should all take that problem extremely seriously. It is in those areas that 51 per cent. of all crime and 72 per cent. of violent crime takes place. That is where we see really poor housing, where most council housing stock resides, and where failing schools are located. We need to recognise the link between a commitment to drive house building and the economic engine of Britain in the south-east and what happens in the regions of the north.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield. Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) made a good point—that investing in infrastructure and housing in the south creates a conflict of interests with the needs of the urban centres of the north and the midlands. In the long sweep of history, part of the difficulty has been migration from the regional centres in those areas. Emigration from the centre of Leeds, Manchester or Newcastle—21 per cent. from Newcastle over 30 years, and 16 per cent. from Manchester—inevitably means that those left behind are those who could not afford to move, because they did not have the education and the economic opportunities possessed by others. As a consequence, the continued economic decline of those centres is guaranteed.
  Last week the Under-Secretary asserted that there was no migration from north to south. It is true that it is hard to track the pattern of migration, but it is a fact that in most major urban centres in the midlands and north there has been a net decline in the population. Some migration has been to the suburbs, some to London, and then outwards to the south-east or to the south-west for retirement purposes. Continuing to build more houses in the south-east will make the problem worse, not better. It will create a cycle of decline in the north, and huge congestion problems in the south. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe pointed out, it will also create a competing demand for infrastructure investment in the south-east which, unless met, will cause an enormous crisis and a major drain of public expenditure.
  Migration of populations from one area to another is extremely expensive. It is a great irony that the Labour party should be pursuing a pro-south-east, proinvestment—in the south-east and south-west—regional policy, with no apparent awareness of the consequences for the midlands and north. It is not that we do not applaud some of the regeneration initiatives; but they will be as nothing if we continue to drag the population away from those urban regional centres.
  Andy King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Norman: My time is limited, but I will give way briefly.
  Andy King: Earlier in his speech, the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that demographic changes in family structures were major factors—not migration, but a breakdown among the older population. What hope is he giving to people in the south-east? He does not seem to be giving them any hope of finding a home that they can afford.
  Mr. Norman: The hon. Gentleman and I do not disagree on this. We all recognise that houses must be

  1377
  built in the south-east; the question is the extent to which we do so. Do we build to adapt the housing stock to the needs of local people, and of net immigration from abroad and outside London? Do we say "What we really want to do is double, or increase further, the rate of house building in the south-east—at least half of which will end up on greenfield land—and invest in public infrastructure to support that, because we want to encourage people to come to the south-east to work and live"? Or do we, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe suggested, invest in public services and public infrastructure in the north, and encourage Government Departments to move to Sheffield and elsewhere?
  I believe that pursuing that policy will not just be much easier on the public purse, but create a much better quality of life for people across the country. It will enable us to avoid the congestion and environmental problems in the south-east, and begin to create a realistic platform for regeneration in the urban centres of the north.
  When the Minister of State said that all we were trying to do was mount an intellectual construct for nimbyism, he could not have been more wrong. In fact, we are trying to create an intellectual construct for regeneration of our urban centres, for protection of the environment, and for creating a sustainable quality of life for those living in congested areas—and real hope for those living in areas of poverty and lack of opportunity.
  2.37 pm
  Ms Oona King: Housing has been my top priority since my election in 1997. I have spoken about it innumerable times, but never have I felt so heartened and truly optimistic as I do today.
  It has always been my job to make real the human misery that is inflicted on my constituents by bad housing. I always think, for instance, of the 23-year-old woman I met who had shared a bedroom with her father throughout her life, of the family who had to place the baby's cot in the bath—that was where its bedroom was—of the family of 12 living in two bedrooms, and of the smaller family of just three, consisting of a 50-year-old woman, her 20-year-old daughter and the mother's brother, who had been made homeless for other reasons. He slept on the sofa in the living room for more than five years. It felt as though he was coming to see me every week for about three years, although it was probably less frequent than that; but I never had the heart to turn him away, because I kept wondering what I would do if I had to sleep on the sofa every night—or if I had to share a bedroom with my dad for my whole life, or share my house with 10 other family members living in two bedrooms.
  I know that, historically, Tower Hamlets has always had a problem of poor housing. We had slum housing in the east end, followed by bombing, followed by inappropriate, poor-quality social housing as well as some private housing that has subsequently fallen into poor repair. I do not often indulge in attacking the Opposition, but monumental Tory cheek on this subject makes that, sadly, inevitable. We know about the £19 billion backlog of repairs, and we have just heard that the Conservative party cut funding for social housing
  1378
  down to one third of what it had been when it came into power in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). We know that, overall, the Conservatives halved the money spent on social housing, and we know that there was incredible Tory indifference during those 18 years to the real misery in the east end wrought upon people by poor housing.
  I was surprised to find so little evidence of thought in the speech of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who is usually a very thoughtful Conservative MP. We have heard that the Conservatives are having a policy review and that there is something of a vacuum at the moment, which will be filled at some point, but there is really only one point that the Conservative Opposition need to address, which is the one question that they cannot answer: will they match this Labour Government's increases in funding for new homes? That is all that my constituents want to know, whether they vote Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem. The majority of them—70 per cent. in Tower Hamlets—rely on social housing, and they want to know, regardless of their political affiliation, where the parties stand on that issue. It is crystal clear at this moment in time that the Conservative party will not match the funding for new housing that the Labour Government have put in place.
  I should also like to know whether the Conservative party will come round to supporting the Barker recommendation to increase the amount of affordable housing. I hope that it will come round to that idea, even if that housing is near its own backyard. If we do not increase the number of affordable housing units, Tower Hamlets residents will be among those who suffer most—although they will not be the only ones who suffer. I commend the work of Tower Hamlets residents in becoming engaged in the process—in particular Bernie Cameron, who has led the residents compact group in Tower Hamlets—and I commend the Tower Hamlets housing staff and housing directorate, as well as the housing associations, which have been at the forefront of innovative thinking on tackling poor housing.
  We in Tower Hamlets feel that we should be rewarded, not penalised. Unfortunately, some of the Government's extremely well meaning attempts to deal with the housing problem in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere have not worked. The right to buy is an obvious example. On the Ocean estate, which had some of the worst housing not only in this country but possibly in Europe, this Government quite rightly said that they would invest £56 million, of which just under half, about £21 million, would go to housing. All that money was to go to improving housing, including making the repairs that had not been made for so long, in order to bring it up to standard. What happened? People on the estate thought, "Oh, well, we haven't had anything for 18 years—we haven't had anything for a very long time. Perhaps we'll all put in a right-to-buy application instead." So instead of any of the £21 million earmarked for housing being able to be spent on housing, more than £23 million had to be earmarked for buying out the right-to-buys. That is the economics of the madhouse.

  1379
  I understand that there are different views across the House. The Conservatives think that we are obsessed with not allowing people to own their home, which is absolutely wrong. We are obsessed with not allowing people to live in slum housing—that was what we needed to deal with. I am concerned about the Conservative proposal to extend the right to buy to housing association properties, because for every two properties sold, only one would be built. If we extended that to its logical conclusion over time, the number of housing association properties would be halved. That cannot be the right way to proceed.
  I speak to a lot of people in Tower Hamlets who have bought their own houses, and some of them now have two, three or four children. They tell me that there is no council housing available for their children—and there is not. If we sell off the housing stock, there will be no housing available for the next generation. That is what a generation in Tower Hamlets faces at the moment.
  That is why I am so delighted at today's announcement, which paves the way for tackling problems with the Tower Hamlets housing stock as a whole, not just in areas such as the Ocean estate but throughout the borough. It removes barriers to housing transfer in areas of negative value. I was delighted while sitting in the Chamber to receive a letter from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which said:
  "I am acutely aware of long standing issues regarding inadequate housing conditions in areas such as Tower Hamlets, where there is a legacy of poor housing … I am delighted to inform you that today, after close co-operation between the Treasury and the ODPM, the Deputy Prime Minister was able to announce a centrally-funded gap funding scheme that will address the issue of negative value transfers directly."
  That is a fantastic example of joined-up government, and I want to highlight the huge ambition of this Government's programme for decent homes.
  As we have heard, for the very first time council tenants will have the right to demand a minimum standard in their homes. When I heard about the Government's programme, my first reaction was delight, but my second reaction was distress. To be honest, I thought that it would not be possible, because no British Government had ever come up with the money required to deal with the east end's historical housing problems. Today, however, I realise that it is possible because today this Government make it so. With the extra funds, a decent home for all by 2010 will be possible—for people in Tower Hamlets and across the country.
  I pay tribute to Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) and I have outlined in some detail the problems for areas with negative values, the legacy of slum housing and the need for extra funding. We met the Minister for Housing and Planning, who gave us much time and attention, and he and his officials were amazingly constructive in their approach. We met the Deputy Prime Minister who, again, was extremely concerned about the problems that we raised and determined to resolve the issue. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for
  1380
  Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for her help. This ministerial team, on behalf of this Labour Government, are making outstanding progress on housing.
  After having lavished so much praise on ODPM Ministers, I know that hon. Members will not expect me to conclude my speech without asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to turn to the subject that I hope they will deal with next: overcrowding. That is still a big problem in Tower Hamlets. As the Under-Secretary knows, the current overcrowding standards date back to 1935, and those in turn rest on legislation dating from the 1880s, which is quite extraordinary. That means that kitchens can be counted as bedrooms, so if my constituent took the cot out of the bath and put it in the kitchen sink instead, that might be all right. In any case, if the cot holds a baby under the age of one, under current standards, that baby does not count.
  Well, 2004 is not 1880, and in 2004, every child counts. I am sorry to be sexist, but I expect particular sympathy for this argument from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is expecting a child in just three months. I know that women and other minorities have to put up with more expectations on their shoulders, but there we are.
  I am very grateful that, at my request, the Department has undertaken research on the extent and impact of overcrowding, and I now ask the Government to go further and to bring the overcrowding standard into the 21st century.
  2.50 pm
  Hywel Williams: It is interesting for me as a Welshman to hear some of the difficulties that we have struggled with in rural Wales for a long time being discussed on a far broader stage. The housing crisis in Wales and in the regions of England is as acute as that in the south-east. I refer hon. Members to early-day motion 1107. Housing in Wales is not immune to market effects from England, as we have seen over the past three or four years, with the Welsh tail being very much wagged by the English dog.
  Markets in Wales are very local, however. The Halifax reports today that UK house price inflation last year was 19 per cent, but the figure in my part of the UK, in Gwynedd, was 57 per cent. I hardly need say that wage levels scarcely rose anything like 57 per cent, so affordability spiralled downwards. The rise in Gwynedd was the highest in the UK, but in West Glamorgan there was a rise of 56 per cent, and in the north-east of England and in Scotland the figure was 40 per cent, which means that ordinary houses are being put way beyond the reach of ordinary families on average earnings. My local authority surveyed houses for sale on the Lleyn peninsula earlier this year, and found that no one on an average income, with the usual multiplier applied by the building society, could buy any of the houses on the market. Those 26,000 people are effectively locked out of the housing market.
  A terraced house in the Roath area of Cardiff that is on the market for £164,950 was going at £65,000 two and a half years ago. Roath is a pleasant area, but it is not exceptional. That house is clearly out of the reach of ordinary people living in the area. Housing is getting out

  1381
  of the reach of local people in Wales in general, and the stock that we have is not of a fit standard. It is estimated that 50,000 children in Wales live in unfit housing.
  In the Ely ward of Cardiff—in the constituency, incidentally, of Wales's First Minister, Rhodri Morgan—36 per cent. of the households are in unfit housing. It is hardly surprising that there is a great deal of unhappiness in the ward. In the Riverside ward, there is a 7.1 per cent. shortfall in new affordable housing: 428 houses are needed. Houses in Riverside are the most likely in Cardiff to be unsuitable, and households there are the least likely to be able to afford to move. It is hardly any wonder that a popular and diligent councillor, Neil McEvoy, has taken the obvious step of coming over from new Labour to Plaid Cymru.
  Wales has the oldest housing stock in western Europe; a third of its houses are pre-1919, and many of them are in very poor condition. House building rates are so low that today's new houses would have to last for 2,000 years before their turn came for replacement. We are not building the houses that we require. In fact, 4 per cent. too few houses are being built each year to fulfil our unmet need—we are short of 32,000 houses.
  In Wales, 8.5 per cent. of the housing stock is unfit, and the repair bill would be £1 billion. At the other extreme, we have some very good housing. In parts of my constituency, houses are priced at £300,000, £400,000 or even £500,000, but unfortunately they tend to be holiday homes. There are communities in the constituency where more than half the housing is in the holiday homes sector, and local people, usually on low wages, have no hope whatever of partaking in the housing market—essentially, they are locked out. Many are emigrating. The more economically active and energetic young people tend to leave. The average age of first-time buyers in Wales is the highest in the UK, at 36.
  There are many problems, and it has been demonstrated in many of the speeches today that there is no easy answer to the housing crisis. We need many solutions. My party set up a rural taskforce in 2001 to look into possible answers, and I commend our document to hon. Members, and especially those from rural areas, such as the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). It contains many positive suggestions. The taskforce considered the many difficulties that people experience in the simple task of getting a decent roof over their heads.
  The report makes many recommendations, not least new build where that is appropriate, but as housing provision and markets are essentially local, new housing must be very carefully targeted. Unfortunately, in the past few years in Wales we have had policies that led, for example, to a minimum build of 50 houses in very small villages. Public money was not available for smaller developments, which would have been more appropriate.
  The rural taskforce also considered part-ownership schemes. The hon. Member for Ludlow made some interesting points about that. My local authority is considering similar schemes under section 106. A crucial aspect of that is a proper assessment of local need. It is all very well saying that we will provide housing for local people, but we need an objective measure of what they need. That is a matter of equity for anyone who is trying to get in on the local housing market. People must know
  1382
  what they face. Gwynedd is currently constructing an instrument to measure local need on a highly localised basis. I hope that the measure will prove useful to other local authorities. We need proper research in rural areas, based on an appreciation of their particular needs. I am glad that my local authority is taking that on.
  The needs of people in my area, in rural Wales, throughout Wales, and in rural areas of England and in the north-east are similar to those in the south-east of England. I ask the Government, and the Government in Cardiff, to apply themselves with equal vigour to the housing problems of those other areas.
  2.59 pm
  David Wright: It is a pleasure to speak in another Commons debate on housing. I should perhaps declare my interest as a member of the Chartered Institute of Housing. As I have told the House on several occasions, I must be getting it wrong somewhere, because I pay the CIH to be a member and I receive no financial benefit whatever. However, it is a superb organisation that contributes effectively to the housing debate in the United Kingdom.
  At this stage it is difficult to speak of a debate, because much of the ground has already been covered, but I want to focus on three broad themes: affordable housing; promoting choice across the housing sector; and housing market renewal. First, however, I should comment on the Conservative party's lack of a housing policy. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) made a good fist of a very difficult job, but her speech was a completely policy-free zone. She came across like a character in a western, wandering on a desert plain with tumbleweed blowing around.
  Like the Minister, I visited the Conservative party's website yesterday to have a look at the policy document "A Home of Our Own." After three attempts during which the search engine crashed, I finally managed to get on to the site and to examine the document. It consists of 61 pages with one policy idea—an idea that the Conservatives have been clinging to for many years—which is the right to buy. I shall return to that issue a little later. The Conservatives' consultation process seems to have no end in sight. What is their housing policy? We do not know.
  I returned to the Conservatives' website to have a look at a speech by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). Again, it was a completely policy-free zone, apart from a comment on right to buy for housing association tenants. I suspect that their policy is very similar to ours in large part, but there is of course a sting in the tail. The shadow Chancellor's announcements on Conservative spending plans, made in February of this year, would mean £18 billion of cuts over two years, and a £400 million real-terms cut in housing investment in 2007–08, compared with 2005–06. I am more than happy to take an intervention on that issue.
  Mrs. Spelman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for inviting an intervention. Does he accept that the savings identified by the shadow Chancellor—indeed, they were agreed to by the Chancellor—in large part recognise the over-burdensome level of bureaucracy that was

  1383
  introduced by this Government, and which the Chancellor himself says could be successfully stripped away after seven years in office?
  David Wright: I welcome the hon. Lady's intervention, but our spending proposals already take into account the level of bureaucracy, as well as continuing growth in housing investment and the policy platform of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister over the next five to 10 years. What she needs to do is to produce costed practical proposals for new housing investment, as the Liberal Democrats have done. In that regard, credit is due to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who made a very good contribution to the debate. So far as the Conservatives' proposals are concerned, there is a policy vacuum and a public spending vacuum. That would mean less money for social housing development, less money for councils to renovate homes, and less money for registered social landlords to invest in local communities such as mine.
  There is nothing new in this. Let us consider the Conservative party's social housing policy in the 1980s, and programmes such as "estate action". That programme's guidelines contained a specific requirement to reduce the number of social housing units. I should know, because unfortunately, while working for a local authority I administered a number of those schemes on behalf of the then Conservative Government. Specific guidance was given to seek reductions in social housing numbers. That is no surprise, given the broad policy platform pursued by the Conservatives during the 1980s and 1990s.
  On promoting affordable housing, the bravest decision that this Government took was giving independence to the Bank of England early in our time in office. That decision was crucial in terms of providing stability for owner-occupiers and for people in the broader housing market, and it gave the country confidence in interest rates. The Barker review builds on that, envisaging a partnership between the Treasury and the ODPM in the development of housing policy. Although the Treasury has a key role to play in influencing the economy, giving independence to the Bank of England was an important step in building public confidence.
  We remember the Conservative years. Between 1990 and 1997, nearly 500,000 homes were repossessed, and in 1992 1.2 million households were suffering from negative equity. The Minister has already told us about the continuing growth in owner-occupation under Labour, but we must remember that base rates averaged more than 10 per cent. between 1979 and 1997 under the Conservatives, hitting a peak of 17 per cent. Mortgage rates are now the lowest since the 1950s—nearly half their average under the Conservatives—saving home owners some £3,500 a year. Repossessions have fallen from 75,540 in 1991 to 11,970 in 2002. That is 11,970 repossessions too many, but it remains an incredible improvement on what the previous Conservative Government delivered.
  The Minister has talked in great detail about ongoing housing spending commitments, and I am proud to note that the Government are increasing housing investment. I want to give a few examples from my constituency of
  1384
  how the Government's regeneration agency English Partnerships is working with the local authority and local communities. In the past year or so, EP has produced significant new housing proposals. I should point out that it did not function particularly well in the preceding three or four years, but significant progress has been made in the past 12 months. Projects are being undertaken in areas such as Lawley and Lightmoor. In the latter, a new Bourneville village—the first one to be built outside Birmingham—will come on stream in the next three to five years.
  In terms of new housing development, a major mixed tenure and mixed development scheme in Lawley will secure an affordable housing level of between 20 and 25 per cent. That is a significant level of affordable housing; indeed, most of the housing in Lightmoor will be affordable housing. That is a very positive step and a major contribution on the part of English Partnerships, which is working in partnership with the local authority on regeneration programmes in Woodside, and with the millennium community scheme in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley).
  Those projects integrate housing development with mixed-use development, including shops, community facilities and schools. That has to be the way forward. They adopt a tenure-blind approach, so that on walking down a street one cannot tell whether a house is for rent or for sale. That is particularly important. Under the Conservatives and programmes such as "estate action", we witnessed the virtual ghettoisation of social housing. Groups of housing units built by registered social landlords were clustered together on the worst parts of sites, instead of being integrated into wider housing schemes. That was the wrong approach, and I am glad that we have amended it. We should see more sustainable communities as a result.
  My second theme is the promotion of choice across the housing sector. In my view, during the 1980s and 1990s, far too much emphasis was placed on owner-occupation; indeed, too much emphasis is still placed on it. That is not what happens elsewhere in Europe, where there is a much wider mix of housing and a greater acceptance that the rented sector—be it the social or private sector—has a major role to play in housing people.
  The problem with right-to-buy policy that was pursued during the 1980s was that it did not secure the replacement of social housing units. I always supported right to buy. I thought that it was fundamentally right that people should have the opportunity to buy their own home. I am pleased that that is our broad position as a party, but we did not foresee the replacement of that housing stock using the capital receipt. A twist of hand or financial deceit took place in respect of the resources going into new investment from right to buy. Most of the money that became available to local authorities had to be used to pay off debt; only a small percentage of the cash could be reinvested by the local authority. It did not work, so we should re-examine the right-to-buy policy and perhaps come to a new consensus.
  The Conservatives want to extend the right to buy to housing association properties. I believe that that will lead to even greater housing shortages and could cost up to £1 billion in extra public subsidy. Since its inception, right to buy has cost more than £40 billion in public

  1385
  subsidy and I am not sure that we want to continue to put that level of subsidy into such a scheme. I am also concerned about the Conservative party's proposals because smaller registered social landlords will be endeavouring to balance their accounts. They have a small amount of stock available to them and my concern is that the proposal may destabilise some of our better, smaller RSLs. I know that that is a matter of concern within the sector.
  Choice means allowing communities to decide who owns and runs the social housing in their area. As I said in an intervention on the Minister, the Conservatives offered only housing transfer—nothing else. I was proud when we extended the options available to social housing tenants to include the private finance initiative, arm's-length management organisations and the retention of stock within local authority ownership. It always puzzled me that those options were not on the table previously, particularly given that they draw in significant private sector investment. I can only conclude that the Conservatives believed that transfer was the only feasible model and that they wanted to remove social housing from the council-related sector completely. That was the policy—transfer or nothing.
  On social housing, it is important to remember that in 1997, the repairs backlog amounted to £19 billion and there was a cut in investment in new affordable housing. In 1996, more than 2 million homes in the social housing sector were in a sub-standard condition. As we heard from the Minister earlier, we celebrate the fact that we have met our initial targets and are moving towards our decent homes targets for 2010 by improving the condition of 1 million homes. That benefits people across the country with better housing conditions and better standards. It has been achieved by offering more choice for people living in social housing—as I said, through PFI, transfer, ALMOs and the retention of stock with local authorities.
  Under the Conservatives, there was a year-on-year decrease in housing investment, and in 1997. council funding for homes was halved to £750 million. Since then, we have trebled council funding for homes to £2.5 billion. Indeed, under the Conservatives, local authority housing debt rose by £500 million between 1992 and 1997, but it has since fallen by £3 billion. That is a positive record on the part of the Labour Government and I am very proud of it.
  My final theme relates to housing market renewal. Housing markets are complex and localised, so we need a process that responds to those aspects. I greatly welcome the Government's initiative on "the northern way", which looks into how to sustain and regenerate housing markets across the north of England. We need to go further and build on the experience of the nine housing market renewal pathfinders. I would like to see us develop—I am looking at the Under-Secretary—"a midlands way" as well, so that we can see sustained investment across the midlands to promote housing market stability. We need to create balanced housing markets. Clearance, along with mixed tenure and mixed use redevelopment, will be particularly critical.
  As the National Housing Federation, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the Local Government Association commented in their recent submission under the comprehensive spending review, it is time to develop a national strategy for housing market
  1386
  restructuring. It should take into account—I partly agree with the hon. Member for Meriden—several aspects of providing a comprehensive approach to housing market renewal and stability. That is the way forward and I commend those organisations for the work that they have done. We need to integrate best practice from the pathfinders into our wider housing strategy, and mainstream that approach.
  I welcome this opportunity to debate housing issues. I am disappointed to find that the Conservative party is not offering a more comprehensive approach. I am sure that it will try to develop one in the coming months. We will continue to enjoy the debate. On our side of the House, we have a lot to be proud of.
  3.15 pm
  Andrew Selous: In common with other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I want to draw on some of my constituency experience. I am enormously pleased that my district council of South Bedfordshire has plans to build some 7,000 houses over the next few years in order to meet the housing demands and needs of my constituents. Like others, I find that housing is the issue that people come to see me about most often. I am delighted that my council plans to build those houses to meet local need and go some way towards providing additional housing for the wider area.
  My local housing authority—South Bedfordshire—is Conservative controlled. Only 5 per cent. of its housing stock is of a non-decent standard. It is a good housing authority, which manages its stock well. That may be why, when stock transfer came up a few years ago, tenants voted to stay with the local authority. They felt that it could trust it and did not want to leave it. I hope that the Government will continue the commitment to give local people the right to decide. It is important that the democratic element of stock transfer should remain in place.
  Although I am positive about the local housing plans that are in place for my constituency, I share the widespread concern of my constituents. About 70,000 of them have backed me by signing a petition expressing concern about the Government's house-building plans, as contained in the communities plan, for my area. Frankly, we believe that the plan is inaptly named: it is not "sustainable", as the Government call it, for a number of reasons.
  The principal reason is that 40 per cent. of people in Bedfordshire already commute out of the county to find work. There are nowhere near enough local jobs to provide for the 43,000 houses—as opposed to the 7,000 that we have sensibly planned for—that the Government propose to place in my constituency. There are also serious concerns, reflected in the Select Committee report, about water availability, and we are highly sceptical that we have sufficient infrastructure for 43,000 houses. We do not believe that the community facilities would be sufficient and we worry about large out-of-town housing estates being placed on the edge of small market towns. That is not the same as proper organic growth. We also believe that a serious lack of community spirit would result, as happened in the Easterhouse development on the edge of Glasgow.

  1387
  Above all, we object to having something foisted on us undemocratically from outside our area. My constituents are sensible people, who are quite capable of electing local councillors to reflect their needs and wants for decent and affordable local housing for themselves and their children. We have a good record locally and it is absolutely wrong of the Government to try to take away powers from the local level to the regional level and then again from the regional to the national level. The Minister for Housing and Planning, who has just come back into the Chamber, confirmed that the regional spatial strategy would be "the creature", to use his words, of the Secretary of State. It is a top-down, rather than a bottom-up, approach, which does not trust the people.
  I wish to make a few comments about why we have the housing problems now facing the country. I commend wholeheartedly the remarks made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). He showed with great clarity and conviction that the Government lack a proper national strategy for coping with housing demand. I am in favour of meeting the genuine housing needs of the south-east, but the Government seem set on aiding the continuous flow of people from the north to the south-east. Their plans do not include providing proper transport links or infrastructure development, and there is no prospect of some Government Departments moving to the north, as has been mentioned already in the debate. We need that to balance the economic development in the country as a whole. The economy is concentrated in the south-east, which is being over developed, as anyone who spends any time on the M25 knows.
  Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. In Burnley, we are beginning to tackle the housing problem, but the fact that industry is increasingly based in the south, or even in Europe, means that there are fewer jobs in areas such as mine, especially jobs that will attract back people who have been away to university. Does he agree that that is a very serious problem in areas of low housing demand?
  Andrew Selous: As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a sensible and powerful point: he wants local jobs to go with proper housing in his area. It will come as no surprise to him that I want exactly the same for my constituents. The Government's plans are wholly unbalanced. We need a proper relationship between housing and jobs. They should be close together, so that we can reduce the amount of unnecessary transport, and thereby pollution. In that way, we could achieve a proper and sustainable environmental solution. I am therefore absolutely at one with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
  The second factor that has contributed to the problems that we face today is the sustained and heavy pressure that the savings and pensions market has come under in the past few years. We must accept that many people now buy houses purely as an investment. One reason for that is that the stock market has fallen in real terms since the Government came to power. The same has happened in Europe and the United States, so the problem is not unique to this country. Although people
  1388
  will rent houses that have been bought for investment, the practice has helped to push house prices up. Housing is therefore less affordable for the people about whom we are concerned this afternoon.
  From the point of view of housing as well as of good community relations, it is important that we introduce a proper and systematic way of removing failed asylum seekers. I want to raise this matter in a sensible and measured way, but the information that I have suggests that there are about 250,000 failed asylum seekers in this country, mainly in London and the south-east. They have not been removed, even though the Government believe that they should be. It is important that we get a proper grip on that problem. That will help secure the good community relations that we all want, and relieve the extreme housing pressures that already exist in the south-east.
  I want to be positive. Labour Members have criticised the Opposition for not having positive ideas, so I shall use the remainder of my speech to put forward some positive solutions of my own.
  I understand that there are about 150,000 empty properties in London and the south-east. I want to make a specific proposal, which I have mentioned before and which I shall keep mentioning. It has to do with the empty flats over shops that can be found in every high street in the country. That phenomenon undermines the vitality of our town centres.
  Those flats would make excellent starter homes for newcomers to an area, or for couples with one child who are just starting out. Such people might not want to remain all their lives in a flat over a shop, but a small financial inducement could be appropriate to facilitate the development of the properties.
  Matthew Green: Such as what?
  Andrew Selous: I am thinking of some form of grant, or of a tax penalty if such properties were not developed. I favour a carrot-and-stick approach, although there is no time for me to go into the details—as the hon. Gentleman said in respect of some of his party's policies. However, some such inducement could easily be introduced, and we should explore the possibility.
  The notion of extended financial families is somewhat new to me, although it received an airing in the national press last week. In this country, our concept of the family is nuclear, and that is hugely to our detriment. Several national newspapers last week carried stories about families who live their lives together. When we build new houses, why not consider building ones with two kitchens, for example? In that way, grandparents could live in one part of a house and younger people in another, but everyone could retain some privacy. All sorts of advantages in respect of child care and so on could flow from such an arrangement, which also represents an environmentally sensible solution. I urge a little more flexibility in our response to new building.
  The debate has touched on demographic change, the euphemism for which is "household formation". I think that we should be more blunt: this country leads the way in Europe in the incidence of relationship breakdown, in all its manifestations. That is a significant driver of demand, and therefore of the housing crisis that we face. We should look much more seriously at relationship

  1389
  support work—a sector into which the Government put only tiny amounts of money. Only £5 million goes to the marriage and relationship support programme. An excellent project for couple mentoting proposed by the organisation Care for the Family was turned down only last week. We must look seriously at this area, as helping people to stay together will reduce housing demand. That is a sensible approach to take.
  We should also extended the disabled facilities grants scheme. To pay for that, I would scrap much of the regional apparatus, and the result would be that many more disabled people would be helped to stay in their own homes.
  Finally, we need to look seriously at how we can help people in large properties—particularly council tenants—to move to smaller ones. We could provide some sort of financial inducement in that respect, and thus free up the larger properties for families who need them.
  3.27 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I am grateful to be called to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker—especially so late in the debate, as it may help me revive my skill at précis, which I fear had become a lost art for me. It seems a long time since my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning spoke, but one cannot help but be carried along by the enthusiasm with which he puts the Government's case and sets out their many achievements. Indeed, by the end of his speech, I thought that he was talking not so much about building low-cost houses as about building the new Jerusalem. That may remain a little bit further down the road, I suppose.
  I have been somewhat perplexed by the argument mounted by some Opposition Members that the problem does not come down merely to a question of supply and demand. I always thought that the Conservative party—at least in its more modern phase—was very much the party of supply and demand and the free market economy. The views of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) may hark back to a more ancient Toryism, but the free market has been the hon. Gentleman's party's dominant philosophy in modern times. All of a sudden, the Opposition appear to believe that the free market or supply and demand do not affect house prices and people's ability to be housed. Of course that is not the sole factor. A large element is the interest rate, but it would take a brave Government, and an even braver Opposition, to say that they would raise interest rates to dampen supply and demand. In any case that would not solve the problem, which will be solved only when there are more properties for people to occupy.
  The problem needs a more delicate approach than has sometimes been brought to it. There is no point in allocating a percentage target for each region of the country uniformly, because the pressure is greater in the south-east. Pressure is also felt in certain rural areas, to which people would like to retire. The only way to solve the problem is—dare I say it—a degree of state intervention. Some Opposition Members talked about
  1390
  state intervention in the sense of moving people around the country. Can we really say to people, "Well, your family has lived here for generations, but the houses are too expensive down here. Why don't you move a couple of hundred miles to where the houses are cheap?"? I do not always know what is meant by the phrase "sustainable communities", but "community" means living and working in an area where one is known and, in many cases, where one's family has lived for a long time. It is therefore important to have sizeable schemes to provide houses for rent and to buy that straightforward working people can afford. That was always what was done in the past.
  When we had state intervention in the form of large council house building programmes, we did not have the wild price fluctuations that we have had since the 1970s. The rate of increase was fairly steady from 1920 until about 1970, because we had state provision of housing for those who could not compete in the open market.
  I commend the Government for the steps that they are taking and the money that they are putting in. I ask them not to be afraid of looking back on our recent history—which did not begin in 1979, but a long time before—and consider some of the solutions used in those days, such as when Mr. Attlee built 1 million houses in five years. We might reflect on how that was done. We might also consider the scheme put forward by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that operates in Shropshire and other places. We must be innovative and we must not be afraid to use the power of Government to ensure that poorer people have decent housing, just as it was offered to their parents and grandparents in the years after the second world war.
  3.31 pm
  Mr. John Hayes: This has been a good debate, with many useful contributions from both sides of the Chamber. It began with an important speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), which set out our profound concerns about the Government's performance on this issue and signalled the direction in which our party will be heading, to which I shall return later.
  It is interesting to note that this debate is an Opposition debate. The only chance that the House has had to debate housing post-Barker is at the behest of the Opposition, today and in the debate in Westminster Hall obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). He spoke persuasively then, as he did today. It is sad, but perhaps unsurprising, that the Government seem unwilling to defend their record, and reluctant to debate the future. In 1997–I carry a copy of the 1997 Labour manifesto at all times to remind me of the calumnies that it contains—the Labour party took a more optimistic view. They declared with shock that homelessness had more than doubled under the Conservatives. The manifesto said:
  "Today more than 40,000 families in England are in expensive temporary accommodation."

  1391
  Seven years later, 95,060 statutorily homeless households live in temporary accommodation—the highest figure ever recorded.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hayes: Well, the Minister will know that Shelter has said that it is a profound disappointment that the Government have failed to deal with those fundamental issues of homelessness. They tell me that more than 100,000 children become homeless in England every year. Some 500,000 households are officially overcrowded, including 300,000 families with children. Only 31,000 new affordable homes were built in 2003, compared with more than 60,000 when we were in government in 1993–94. More than 3 million households live in poor housing.
  I welcome the Government's success in meeting their target on bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It is good that 4,000 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation have been moved into more appropriate accommodation, but at least 9,000 families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are not covered by the target. We heard about some of them in the debate today. We heard about those families who are referred to temporary accommodation through social services. We heard about some of the asylum seeker families with children who are not included in the figures. We heard about many families who are housed in unsuitable, inappropriate accommodation, in hostels and elsewhere. Yes, a small target has been hit and a pledge has been met, but there are bigger targets and many more significant matters. There are many greater indictments of the Government, not merely from the Opposition but from all those who share our concern for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
  The Government are failing on homelessness. They are also failing on house building. Much has been made of house building in the debate and I acknowledge that there is a housing crisis, but the real crisis is housing mix; it is about the match between the availability of particular types of houses and the need for them. For example, there is a real problem in social housing, where the number of houses built has halved under the Government. There is a real problem in relation to accommodation for single-person households because much of the building in the market sector has been three or four-bedroomed houses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells pointed out. Indeed, according to figures produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, that trend is likely to continue unabated. The real problem is about the marriage between provision and need, and the Government show no signs of dealing with it.
  Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the wrong sort of housing is being built, and I very much share that view, but given open market conditions, how does he propose, through the planning
  1392
  system, to build the right sort of houses? Does he want centrally imposed Government targets to tell local councils how many one-bedroomed houses to build?
  Mr. Hayes: What is clear is that those predict and provide targets have produced the wrong housing mix. We have had predict and provide for years, yet we have ended up with a situation in which affordability is as bad as it has ever been and where the houses being built do not meet demand from single-parent households, first-time buyers and others. It is clear that the best way to deal with those problems is to trust local communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said in her opening remarks. It is entirely appropriate that the people closest to local communities, with their interests at heart, should make decisions about how those communities should develop.
  The Minister described that idea as an intellectual construct to defend nimbyism. If nimbyism is believing that local people should have a key role in deciding how their neighbourhood changes and develops; if it is believing that for the most part, incremental development is always preferable to large-scale inappropriate development; if it is believing that houses should be built in character with the landscape and houses around them, most of Britain and most Members of this place would be guilty of nimbyism. If the sort of threats I have described were planned for the constituencies of the Under-Secretary and the Minister, I suspect that they would find it hard not to become nimbies themselves. That is the truth of the matter.
  People's natural concern for their environment and their community is written off by Labour Members as nimbyism, but we stand four-square behind those people in Bedfordshire and elsewhere, so well defended by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous), who stands up for the interests of his constituents at every opportunity—as the Minister himself has previously acknowledged. We stand up for people in Ashford in Kent and for people in Northamptonshire and elsewhere who face the onslaught of the concreting over of their green and pleasant land. Those people are not against all development; they simply want appropriate development on a human scale.
  Mr. Betts: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He is presumably not saying that the Conservative party is against any development at all, so can he explain what appropriate development is and what scale of development the Conservatives would support in the south-east?
  Mr. Hayes: That would require a speech of considerably more than 15 minutes, but if the hon. Gentleman had been listening to me carefully he would have heard me say that development is best when it is incremental, when it is in character and in keeping with existing settlement, when it respects the environment and landscape and when it is appropriate to the needs of a mixed, balanced and self-sustaining community. Ultimately, it will be for those in each community to decide what is right for them and their locality, but those are the points of reference that I would offer them, and they would not be very far from the hon. Gentleman's considerations about such things, because he is a studious contributor to housing debates.

  1393
  Let me turn to affordability. We must assume, given the absence of any Government statement to the contrary, that Kate Barker's assumptions are the Government's assumptions. Kate Barker says that the real problem of affordability is one of supply. She assumes that a supply-side solution can be devised and implemented to deal with the problem of escalating house prices. Let me say, as I have said before, that house prices are driven up and stay up because of a variety of demand-side factors: low interest rates, the unattractiveness of alternative investment vehicles, the amount of borrowing secured by housing equity and the disproportionate allure of home ownership in British culture.
  Those are the things that have driven up and kept up house prices, and the idea that we can deal with house price inflation or even house price volatility by supplyside changes—given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said, only 1 per cent. of housing is new build and only 10 per cent. of transactions apply to those houses—is at best extraordinarily ambitious and, at worst, hopelessly naive. The Minister knows very well that to effect those changes would take an enormous amount of time—the land must be found, local people must back the plans, the houses must be built and then investment must be put into all the associated infrastructure. That is neither sustainable, nor a practical solution to house price inflation and volatility.
  The other side of the Barker report—the Minister did not mention this in his remarks today—is that, to effect such change, Government would have to ride roughshod over local communities. Power would need to be transferred to the regions, which would impose those building targets on local people, who would have almost no say in where the houses were built and what they looked like. That is a move from predict and provide to dictate and provide, and the Minister was very cautious about not mentioning that because he knows that it is indefensible.
  When we make those charges, the Secretary of State—supported by the Ministers present today, who are good people, but misguided ones—usually crows about the green belt, but as I described in a question to the right hon. Gentleman just a few days ago, the truth is that Government's claims about the green belt do not bear close examination. The Library tells us that the Government are "imprecise and evasive", when asked questions about where the green belt has and has not been developed.
  When we study where the green belt has been expanded, we find that that has not happened in the areas where there is maximum pressure for development. Some 94 per cent. of the development of the green belt has occurred in a handful of areas in the north of England. The green belt was designed as a tight belt of land to avoid urban sprawl, yet none of the areas where urban sprawl is a real risk is benefiting from the Government's new interest in the green belt. Mr. Prescott's belt is elastic. It extends ever further into the countryside and ever further away from the areas that it is supposed to protect. So perhaps the Minister and the Secretary of State, before they make any more claims about the green belt, would be better served by looking closely at their record and giving more precise and less evasive answers to the very proper questions posed to them by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  1394
  We have been chided about our policies, and I want to say something about them in a moment. We had hoped to hear something from the Minister about empty homes; the development land tax; the impact of the Government's ideas on local democracy; and affordability targets. We had hoped to hear something about those things in the Minister's opening speech; perhaps we will hear something in the closing speech. All we have heard, as a defence of the Government's housing policy, is an attack on us.
  There is a determination to implement a decent home standard that, although laudable, is by no means enough in terms of tackling overcrowding, warm homes and accessibility for disabled people—all issues that the Conservatives, together with some of the minor parties, have highlighted in Committee and elsewhere. So the Government should not tell me that we have not taken a stand on such things, for if they study the evidence, they will find that we have done so.
  We have heard a lot about the communities plan, of which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee said:
  "Building more homes is not a panacea and the impact of such a housing programme on the environment could be unsustainable … The Government's objective to bring down house prices is unlikely to be achieved … The Committee is not convinced that the enlarged house-building programme can be accommodated in the South East without seriously affecting the quality of the environment."
  The Conservatives are going to look at a more fluid system which, by extending transferable discounts, will allow people to move more easily from social housing to market housing. We are going to look afresh at shared equity as a means of dealing with affordability, and will put together an empty homes strategy that brings into use some of the 700,000-plus empty homes, on which the Government have consulted endlessly but about which they have done nothing. We are going to look at bringing into use some of the ex-industrial and commercial premises, redesignated for housing purposes, and at effecting a real green belt that protects our towns and cities from urban sprawl.
  The challenge before us is to beautify our landscape, improve our towns and cities, and serve the future in stone and brick or merely propitiate the present with cheap durables, utility and ubiquity. Some will rise magnificently to that challenge, but many will not. Nothing in the words or character of the Government gives me confidence that they will rise above their lamentable record. However, there is still an opportunity for them to do so. Let them come to the Dispatch Box in the few minutes available and give us an honest appraisal of how they intend to improve things in the interests of all the people of this country.
  3.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): We have had an interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) gave a powerful description of cuts in affordable housing investment in the 1980s and '90s, and raised the important issue of quality and design. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) made a thoughtful response to the Barker review, which we have partly debated before. He

  1395
  made important individual points, but they did not add up to the conclusion that he drew, a subject to which I shall return later. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) spoke about empty homes, on which we are doing a lot of work, and overcrowding, which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). I pay tribute to the work that she and other Labour Members have done on the issue. We are making amendments on overcrowding to the Housing Bill, and we will shortly consult on the issue in more detail.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) talked about the quality of housing in Wales which, he will know, is a devolved matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) pointed out the importance of mixed tenure communities, and called for a midlands way. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) complained about the sustainable communities plan, but he knows that there is considerable consultation at both regional and local levels on the proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made sensible points about supply and demand in the housing market.
  The Opposition are still burying their heads in the sand about the need for new houses, and there were contradictions in the arguments that their spokespeople made, both in the motion and in their speeches. They want to argue that there is not a problem with housing supply, yet they complain that key workers cannot afford to buy a house. They do not want more houses to be built in their constituencies, yet they complain that first-time buyers cannot afford to buy a home in the towns and villages where they grew up. They say that we need more affordable housing, yet they want to cut the social housing budget and stock. They cannot have it both ways.
  I welcome the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) to her post. She said that she cares passionately about these issues, and I believe that she does. However, she has done nothing to improve the internal logic and consistency of the Conservatives' position.
  Mr. Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for her courtesy in giving way. I have been listening to what she is saying, but the missing word is "infrastructure". In my constituency, all the secondary schools are effectively full, it is difficult to register with a general practitioner, and it is practically impossible to find an NHS dentist. The Government cannot keep forcing more houses into the south-east of England, including my own county of Essex, unless they are prepared to provide the infrastructure to go with them. If they are not going to do so, they should stop trying to cover us in concrete.
  Yvette Cooper: Of course infrastructure is important in growth areas. That is exactly why we are putting hundreds of millions of pounds of investment into the growth areas. Conservative Members expressed their concerns about the housing market, but all that they could say about their own policy was that they were conducting a review. The predecessor of the hon. Member for Meriden said that he was doing a review
  1396
  and he asked the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) to lead it. I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, but I remember that he was the Minister who described the homeless as the people one stepped over as one came out of the opera. So we will wait with bated breath for that review and the conclusions that it reaches.
  The Conservatives argue that we do not need to increase the housing stock. They do not like the Barker report. I see that those on the Conservative Front Bench have decided to offer their own analysis in place of Kate Barker's, and I am sure that the House will want to weigh in the balance the economic expertise of Kate Barker, a member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, and the economic expertise of those on the Conservative Front Bench today. They are, after all, the team whose leader argued strongly against giving the Bank of England independence and said that it should not have increased interest rates in 1997–98. Given that those interest rates were so important in preventing the boom-bust cycle and in preventing a crash in the housing market like the one that we saw in the early '90s, I think economic history has demonstrated that we are lucky to be dependent on the judgment of the Monetary Policy Committee in this area, rather than on that of the Conservative Front-Bench team.
  The Conservatives are kidding themselves if they think they can ignore the problems of house price inflation and pretend that there is no case for more houses to be built. Demand is increasing and supply has not kept up. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) argues that we should not concentrate on addressing housing supply because it takes a long time to build houses. I must point out to him that if he had started to take a long-term view 10 or 20 years ago, and if his party had done the same, we might have a rather healthier housing market today.
  The Conservatives keep pretending that we do not need more houses. Tell that to the nurse who cannot afford to buy a flat within an hour of the London hospital in which she works. They say they care about key workers and they want to support first-time buyers, yet the logic of their analysis is to price more and more of them out of the housing market altogether, and that is not fair.
  The hon. Member for Meriden claimed that we were patio-ing over the countryside. I should point out to the Opposition that the green belt has increased since 1997 by 25,000 hectares, with a further 12,000-hectare increase under consultation. What happened to the green belt between 1987 and 1997? It was cut. The Government have increased brownfield development above 60 per cent., which the Tories continually failed to do.
  Mr. Hayes: The Minister says the Government have increased the green belt, as I predicted she would, but 22,630 hectatres—94 per cent. of the total—is in Blyth Valley, Tynedale, Bolsover and Blackburn, which are not the areas that are under most pressure to develop. It

  1397
  is unsurprising that the House of Commons Library describes her policy and her answers on the subject as evasive. Are they evasive or is the Library wrong?
  Yvette Cooper: We have made clear throughout our commitment to sustaining the green belt in every region. That is exactly what we are doing, unlike the policies of the Conservatives when they were in government, when they cut the green belt over a long period.
  It is important that we address the problems faced in parts of the north, where some areas face low demand and where we have set out a £500 million programme to tackle low demand, as well as regional growth strategies such as "the northern way", whereas the Conservatives ignored the problems for so long. The hon. Member for Meriden said that she cared about regeneration, and again, I believe her, but she urged us not to cut regeneration funding. Has she talked to the shadow Chancellor recently? Does she know that he wants to cut 5 per cent. in real terms from every budget except health and education?
  Mrs. Spelman indicated dissent.
  Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady denies it, but the shadow Chancellor said on the record that he wants to freeze spending and make a 5 per cent. real terms cut in regeneration programmes, which would mean cuts to the new deal, Sure Start and neighbourhood renewal programmes. She might want to focus her passion within her own party; this party is committed to keeping up investment in regeneration programmes because they tackle unjust inequalities across the country. We need more, better quality affordable housing.
  Sarah Teather: Is the Minister aware that house prices in my area rose by 11 per cent. last year, which is the greatest increase in any London borough, and that 18,000 people are on the Brent waiting list to be transferred to council housing, 4,238 of whom are in temporary accommodation? Is she also aware that the incidence of empty homes is much higher in Brent than elsewhere in London—5.4 per cent. of properties in Brent are empty, compared with the London average of 3.2 per cent.? Does she think that more could be done to address that problem?
  Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I agree that more could be done about empty homes. We are working closely with the Empty Homes Agency because we want to act on the issue, which is why we held a consultation. The hon. Lady referred to the difficulties that some of her constituents face, and she knows that both affordable housing and overall housing supply in London and the south-east are important issues. We must increase the supply of affordable housing and tackle the issue of quality, which is why we are addressing the £19 billion backlog in repairs and maintenance. In 1997, we inherited a situation in which 2.1 million families were living in cold, damp or draughty accommodation, which included homes with leaky windows and inadequate heating that did not meet modern standards and expectations.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Government amendment states that the Government have taken the trouble
  "to support the creation of 230,000 affordable homes since 1997".
  1398
  Given that a parliamentary answer on 27 April stated that 14,601 affordable homes are currently being built, and that seven times 14,601 is way short of the 230,000 total, will she undertake to put in the Library which regions those 230,000 houses were built in?
  Yvette Cooper: I am happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with more information about affordable housing, which is an issue that we must address across the country. The Conservatives also need to reflect carefully on their claims about building social housing. In the early 1990s, the public sector could build affordable homes at those levels because the housing market had collapsed, the property and construction markets were in crisis, the Tories had pushed the country into a devastating recession and interest rates had hit 15 per cent. Some 1.5 million families suffered negative equity because of the stupid economic policies pursued by the Conservative Government at that time. Do Conservative Members really want to hold up the early '90s as a great example of housing policy? We know that they want to turn the clock back, but it would be foolish to turn it back to a policy of boom and bust.
  Look at the Tories' other polices for tackling affordable housing. They want to force housing associations to adopt the right to buy, which would cut housing stock in the long term. Their most ludicrous policy is to cut investment in housing. The shadow Chancellor has made it abundantly clear that he wants £18 billion of cuts in two years, which means at least £400 million of cuts in housing. I must point out to the Tories that houses cost money, and do not grow on trees or fall from the sky, street by street. Affordable houses cost money, and I do not know how they can increase affordable housing by cutting the housing budget.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 317.

  Division No. 159]

  [3:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Burns, Simon

  Allan, Richard

  Burnside, David

  Amess, David

  Burstow, Paul

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Burt, Alistair

  Bacon, Richard

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Baker, Norman

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Baldry, Tony

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Cameron, David

  Barrett, John

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bercow, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Blunt Crispin

  Chidgey, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Chope, Christopher

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Brady, Graham

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Collins, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Breed, Colin

  Cotter, Brian

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Browning. Mrs Angela

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  1399

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Mercer, Patrick

  Doughty, Sue

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Moore, Michael

  Evans, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fabricant, Michael

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Flight, Howard

  Öpik, Lembit

  Flook, Adrian

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Page, Richard

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Paice, James

  Francois, Mark

  Paterson, Owen

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Garnier, Edward

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Redwood, rh John

  Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Goodman, Paul

  Rendel, David

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Greenway, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gummer, rh John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hancock, Mike

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Ruffley, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Harvey, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Selous, Andrew

  Heald, Oliver

  Shepherd, Richard

  Heath, David

  Simmonds, Mark

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hendry, Charles

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

  Hermon, Lady

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Holmes, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Howard, rh Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Spring, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Jack, rh Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Streeter, Gary

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Keetch, Paul

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Syms, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Taylor, lan (Esher)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lamb, Norman

  Teather, Sarah

  Lansley, Andrew

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Thurso, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Trend, Michael

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Trimble, rh David

  Liddell-Grainger, lan

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Viggers, Peter

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Maclean, rh David

  Waterson, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Watkinson, Angela

  Malins, Humfrey

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Maples, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Mates, Michael

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  1400

  Wiggin, Bill

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarion)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Willis, Phil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Gregory Barker

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coleman, lain

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Connarty, Michael

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Allen, Graham

  Corston, Jean

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Cranston, Ross

  Crausby, David

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cruddas, Jon

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Austin, John

  Cummings, John

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Banks, Tony

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Davidson, lan

  Battle, John

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Beard, Nigel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bennett, Andrew

  Denham, rh John

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Berry, Roger

  Dismore, Andrew

  Best, Harold

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Betts, Clive

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Blackman, Liz

  Doran, Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Borrow, David

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Edwards, Huw

  Efford, Clive

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Browne, Desmond

  Farrelly, Paul

  Bryant, Chris

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Fisher, Mark

  Burden, Richard

  Flint, Caroline

  Burgon, Colin

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Burnham, Andy

  Follett, Barbara

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Foster, rh Derek

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Cairns, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Casale, Roger

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Caton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Gibson, Dr. lan

  Challen, Colin

  Gilroy. Linda

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Grogan, John

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clelland, David

  Hanson, David

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Cohen, Harry

  1401

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  MacDougall, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McFall, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  McGrady, Eddie

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Heppell, John

  Mclsaac Shona

  Hesford, Stephen

  McKechin, Ann

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Heyes, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  McWilliam, John

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettieston)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Merron, Gillian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Miliband, David

  Hutton, rh John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Moffatt, Laura

  Illsley, Eric

  Mole, Chris

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Morgan, Julie

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Morley, Elliot

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Jamieson, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Owen, Albert

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Picking, Anne

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Kidney, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Lammy, David

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lepper, David

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ruane, Chris

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Ruddick, Joan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Linton, Martin

  Ryan, Juan (Enfield N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Love, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lucas, lan (Wrexham)

  Sawford, Phil

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCabe, Stephen

  Sheridan, Jim

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Short, rh Clare

  MacDonald, Calum

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  McDonnell, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  1402

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Ward, Claire

  Soley, Clive

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Squire, Rachel

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Watts, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  White, Brian

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stewart, lan (Eccles)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wills, Michael

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Wilson, Brian

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Winnick, David

  Straw, rh Jack

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stringer, Graham

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wyatt, Derek

  Truswell, Paul

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Vernon Coaker

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 199.

  Division No. 160]

  [4:14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Browne, Desmond

  Ainger, Nick

  Bryant, Chris

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Allen, Graham

  Burden, Richard

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Burgon, Colin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Burnham, Andy

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cairns, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Austin, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bailey, Adrian

  Casale, Roger

  Baird, Vera

  Caton, Martin

  Banks, Tony

  Cawsey, lan (Brigg)

  Barnes, Harry

  Challen, Colin

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Battle, John

  Chaytor, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clapham, Michael

  Beard, Nigel

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Best, Harold

  Betts, Clive

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clelland, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Cohen, Harry

  Borrow, David

  Coleman, lain

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Colman, Tony

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Connarty, Michael

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cooper, Yvette

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Corston, Jean

  Cousins, Jim

  1403

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cummings, John

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hutton, rh John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davidson, lan

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jamieson, David

  Denham, rh John

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kemp, Fraser

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Fisher, Mark

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Flint, Caroline

  Kidney, David

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Follett, Barbara

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Foster, rh Derek

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Lammy, David

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lepper, David

  Gilroy, Linda

  Leslie, Christopher

  Godsiff, Roger

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Grogan, John

  Linton, Martin

  Hain, rh Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Love, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hanson, David

  McCabe, Stephen

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  MacDonald, Calum

  McDonnell, John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  MacDougall, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McFall, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  McGrady, Eddie

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Heppell, John

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Hesford, Stephen

  McKechin, Ann

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Heyes, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  McWilliam, John

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  1404

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S.)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Miliband, David

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Southworth, Helen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Squire, Rachel

  Mole, Chris

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Julie

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Morley, Elliot

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mountford, Kali

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mudie, George

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Mullin, Chris

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Straw, rh Jack

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stringer, Graham

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, David (NW Leis)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Owen, Albert

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Picking, Anne

  Trickett, Jon

  Pickthall, Colin

  Truswell, Paul

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pound, Stephen

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ward, Claire

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Watts, David

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  White, Brian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wills, Michael

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wilson, Brian

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Winnick, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Woolas, Phil

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Worthington, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sheridan, Jim

  Short, rh Clare

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Simon, Siôon (B'ham Erdington)

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Vernon Coaker

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Allan, Richard

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Amess, David

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Brady, Graham

  Bacon, Richard

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Baker, Norman

  Brazier, Julian

  Baldry, Tony

  Breed, Colin

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Barrett, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Burns, Simon

  Bellingham, Henry

  Burnside, David

  Bercow, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Burt, Alistair

  Blunt, Crispin

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Boswell, Tim

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  1405

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cameron, David

  Jack, rh Michael

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cash, William

  Keetch, Paul

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Chidgey, David

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Chope, Christopher

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Clappison, James

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Collins, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lamb, Norman

  Cotter, Brian

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Lidington, David

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Doughty, Sue

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Maclean, rh David

  Evans, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fallon, Michael

  Maples, John

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Mates, Michael

  Maude, rh Francis

  Flight, Howard

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Flook, Adrian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Forth, rh Eric

  Mercer, Patrick

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mitchel, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Francois, Mark

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Moore Michael

  Garnier, Edward

  Moss, Malcolm

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Norman, Archie

  Gidley, Sandra

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  öpik, Lembit

  Goodman, Paul

  Osborne George (Tatton)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Page, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Paice, James

  Grieve, Dominic

  Paterson Owen

  Gummer, rh John

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Hancock, Mike

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Harvey, Nick

  Redwood, rh John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Rendel, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Robathan, Andrew

  Heath, David

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Hendry, Charles

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'bry)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Holmes, Paul

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Ruffley, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  1406

  Sanders, Adrian

  Thurso, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Trend, Michael

  Selous, Andrew

  Trimble, rh David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Tyrie, Andrew

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

  Viggers, Peter

  Walter, Robert

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Soames, Nicholas

  Watkinson, Angela

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Spring, Richard

  Wiggin, Bill

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Willetts, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Swayne, Desmond

  Wilshire, David

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Syms, Robert

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Taylor. John (Solihull)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Taylor. Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Teather, Sarah

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Gregory Barker

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House commends the Government's record on housing, and the progress it has made in delivering sustainable communities, as set out in Making it Happen: The Northern Way and elsewhere; notes that one million more people own their homes now than in 1997, whilst mortgage rates are at their lowest since the 1950s; notes that since 1997 there are one million fewer social homes below the decency standard and welcomes the Government's approval of 58 new schemes that could make decent another 170,000 social homes; applauds the fact that the number of families with children in bed and breakfast accommodation for longer than six weeks has reduced by at least 99.3 per cent. since March 2002; supports the Government's plans in the Thames Gateway and newer growth areas to deliver new sustainable communities and provide an extra 200,000 homes; further welcomes the action the Government has taken to support the creation of 230,000 affordable homes since 1997, to help over 10,000 key workers into home ownership in areas of high demand, and to reduce rough sleeping to the lowest level since records began; further supports the Government's creation of a £500 million Market Renewal Fund to tackle the worst cases of low housing demand and abandonment; applauds the creation of regional housing boards to ensure investment is focused on regional priorities; and welcomes the fact that the Government has added 25,000 hectares to the greenbelt with a further 12,000 hectares in prospect, and is exceeding its brownfield target, having built 64 per cent. of new homes on previously developed land in 2003.

  Christmas Day (Trading) Bill [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment on the Order Paper.
  4.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I beg to move,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.
  As drafted, the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) may have some small expenditure implications for the Treasury purse. A money resolution is required because inspectors will enforce the prohibition on the opening of large shops on Christmas day. The costs are expected to be negligible because only a handful of shops have opened in the past. The overwhelming majority of large shops do not currently open and do not plan to open in the future. The new regulation will simply maintain the status quo.
  Enforcement will be informed by local publicity or complaints by members of the public. I do not envisage trading standards officers, whose responsibility it will be to enforce the regulation—
  Mr. John Bercow: I am immediately intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "negligible". Does he interpret "negligible", in this context, to be a sum smaller or larger than the £50,000 limit proposed in the admirable amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: The amendment was not admirable, because it was not chosen. The figure will be negligible in the context of the enforcement that may be required. The new regulation will simply maintain the status quo.
  Mr. John Redwood: The Minister should give us a little more information than that. Will he estimate the cost, and say by how much it will exceed the rather generous figure of —50,000 mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I do not want to waste the time of the House; we will have the opportunity to look at such matters in detail when the Bill goes into Committee, which I understand will be next week. Clearly, there are issues that need to be discussed but, as I have already explained, we see "negligible" as referring to the impact that there will be on the Treasury purse.
  Mr. Greg Knight: The Minister has said that the impact will be negligible on the Treasury purse, but is not the problem that the money resolution, if passed, will in effect sanction council tax increases across the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: No, it is not. That is a spurious attempt to railroad the discussion and move us away from the
  1408
  purpose of the excellent debate that we had on Second Reading, when hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), attended the House on a Friday morning. I respect his abilities on Friday mornings, as I mentioned during that debate. Members on both sides supported the intentions of the private Member's Bill, and we are today just discussing the money resolution, which is the norm for such Bills. As I have said, there will be time in Committee to go through in more detail some of the points that hon. Members want to raise.
  I do not envisage that trading standards officers will have to visit large shops to check compliance on Christmas day. The legislation is likely to cause a minimal addition to existing enforcement responsibilities, so the implications for the public purse are expected to be negligible. I commend the motion to the House.
  4.29 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: First, I convey the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) who would normally deal with this business but is occupied on parliamentary business elsewhere in the House. I was not present for the Second Reading debate on a Friday—I was in my constituency—but I have read the report of the debate, and I see that it was in general a good-natured occasion, apart from the unexpected and savage attacks on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who was present in his capacity as the guardian of the taxpayer and a fierce fighter for deregulation.
  I note that at the time of an enormously skilful and successful Government Whips Office in 1994, a very difficult and contentious measure was enacted, enabling the House to resolve a matter that had presented many difficulties in previous years.
  Mr. Greg Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his complimentary remarks about the Whips Office in 1994. as I was Deputy Chief Whip at the time. If my memory serves me correctly, he, too, was a member of the very same office.
  Mr. Mitchell: These matters were too long ago for—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is all very interesting, but I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman returned to the matter before the House.
  Mr. Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that on that occasion a number of hon. Members, of whom I was one, supported an amendment that we believed would exclude Christmas day and Easter day from the provisions on Sunday shopping. Unfortunately, the fact that Christmas day could fall on a day other than Sunday eluded a number of hon. Members, including me, hence the need for this Bill, which I support.
  I urge my colleagues to support the money resolution, as the Bill should stand or fall on its merits and should not be stillborn because of the failure to pass this resolution.
  Mr. Redwood: Does my hon. Friend think it right that the Government should produce a money resolution without giving us any hint about how much money might be involved?
  Mr. Mitchell: My right hon. Friend pre-empts precisely the point that I was about to make.
  Does the Minister agree that the cost of not passing the money resolution might be far higher? Although a severe problem is yet to emerge, there is a danger of a domino effect, whereby when one or two shops start opening others might follow. The market pressures could become so intense that retailers had to open, and before long Christmas day would be the same as any other trading day. If we then tried to introduce legislation, the costs of enforcement and publicity would indeed be far greater.
  Does the Minister accept the comments made by my right hon. Friends about the lack of detail about the costs involved? It would be helpful if he said a word or two about the extent of the costs. What would they be for, and how much does he estimate that they might be? We have a duty of care to the taxpayer—something that the Government, sadly, take all too lightly. I hope that he can supply those details.
  Although the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was not selected, specific amounts have in the past been added to money resolutions. The last such occasion was about 50 years ago when a money resolution on the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Bill was debated, limiting payments to £1.5 million in the first year and £250,000 in subsequent years. One of your predecessors, Colonel Sir Charles McAndrew MP, was in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My predecessor as MP for Sutton Coldfield, Sir John Mellor, made a supportive speech, and my predecessor as MP for Gedling, Sir Kenneth Pickthorn, made a speech in which he complained that he had been sitting in the House for some five hours and had not been fed or watered in that time. He received considerable sympathy from Members and then made an impassioned speech. The House did not divide on that occasion, but the Minister present explained the amount of money involved, what it was being spent on and how the figures had been reached.
  I shall support the money resolution, and I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider doing likewise for the reason that I gave: the Bill should stand or fall on its own merits; it should not fall because the money resolution does not go through. However, I commend the practice whereby the Minister dealing with the motion explained the sums involved in a money resolution. I hope that the Minister present will give us more details on that later.
  4.36 Pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: We have a problem—the blank cheque syndrome. Every time a money resolution is presented to us in this way, Ministers come over all coy and cannot—or will not—give us the amount involved. That is absurd. We—the tribunes of the people and the defenders of the taxpayer—are given no information whatsoever by Ministers as to the sums that they propose to extract from the taxpayer to support a Bill. That problem
  1410
  remains and, sad to say, the Minister present has followed the pattern with which we are all too familiar. [Interruption.] He is looking particularly pleased with himself, although I cannot imagine why. When a horrified electorate discover the outrage being perpetrated on them today, they will, I hope, wipe the smile off his face.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: The right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished Member of the House and a former Minister. Is this not an enabling motion of the sort that accompanies most Bills, and which will permit the necessary spending once the Bill has completed its legislative passage? Did he not move money resolutions when he was a Minister?
  Mr. Forth: I cannot remember, but I hope that I would not touch a motion such as this with a bargepole, under any circumstances.
  The Minister has generously helped me by reminding me of another problem. The Bill has not even reached consideration in Committee or on Report, when it may well be substantially altered in who knows what manner, yet he wants us to vote unknown sums for a Bill that has yet to take its final form. That is another absurdity and a generic problem that we face with these motions, although I realise that the Minister is not responsible, as he does not control the procedure of the House.
  I had hoped to move an amendment to the money resolution that would make the Bill's originator—a trade union—pick up the cost of implementing it. It is surely absolutely proper that the trade union in question, which is trying for the second or third time to get the Bill through the parliamentary process, should pay the cost of implementing it, rather than the taxpayer.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman's line of argument is very interesting, but I should point out that the Bill is also supported by the Catholic Church and the Church of England. Is he suggesting that they, too, should be levied for the cost of implementing it?
  Mr. Forth: Perhaps. The problem is that often anonymous or unknown interest groups introduce Bills and put undue pressure on innocent Members of Parliament, who are expected to bring them before the House. The groups then slink away into the darkness, leaving the taxpayer holding the no doubt substantial bill. To my mind, that is a difficulty.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman is advancing a very interesting proposition. Does he want to surcharge the new Leader of the loyal Opposition in respect of what happened with the poll tax? It was the poor old taxpayer who had to pick up the cost of that.
  Mr. Forth: If I recall correctly, the excellent poll tax—I still believe that it was a wonderful idea, but it went a little wrong in implementation—was not introduced through a private Member's Bill. It might have done better if it had been. It might have received excellent scrutiny and emerged in a better form. I am talking in

  1411
  the context of a money resolution for a private Member's Bill and I am focusing like a laser on that aspect of our procedure.
  My first thought was that we should try to find a way to ensure that those who inflict regulatory measures on us pay the cost of them. I was advised that that might be complicated, and then our excellent Clerks gave me further advice. My modest amendment was tabled partly as a probing amendment, but I also thought that it might provide the cost of one additional official in the Department to oversee the process. My right hon. and hon. Friends have already extracted from the Minister the fact that, if this regulatory measure is implemented, it will impose additional costs on local authorities. If the Government are not going to divvy up, the taxpayer will inevitably have to pay up. We are left with a most unsatisfactory degree of uncertainty about the measure.
  I am sure that we all look forward to seeing the Bill in Committee, but more important to me is the fact that we will have ample opportunity on Report to explore in greater detail the substantial areas for amendment, which I hinted at on Second Reading. I believe that there are many possible ways of strengthening and improving the Bill.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Has my right hon. Friend had any private briefing from the Minister on this matter? I am still at a loss to understand how the Minister can say that the cost of the money resolution will be negligible, because we are dealing with a Bill that is not yet an Act of Parliament. If the Bill, in its final form, imposes a number of onerous duties on local authorities, they might seek to employ an army of staff to implement them. How can the Minister tell the House that the costs are negligible?
  Mr. Forth: I cannot tell my right hon. Friend when I last had a private briefing from a Minister. It must be some time—perhaps not since I was a Minister. I certainly cannot think of any occasion since. My right hon. Friend reinforces an important point. The Minister claimed that the costs were negligible, which suggests that he has some idea of the scale of the costs, yet he will not tell the House with the honesty and transparency that the Government frequently claim for themselves—we have heard all the guff about freedom of information and open government—what the scale will be. In fact, when it comes to it, we get no transparency or honesty from Ministers at all. How does the Minister know that the costs will be negligible, when he refuses to tell us how negligible? He will not even give a hint as to the likely figure, even though, as my right hon. Friend reminded us, the Bill may be subject to amendment in Committee or on Report.
  The costs could be reduced and, if they were, the taxpayer would be grateful. However, if hon. Members want to strengthen or improve the Bill or bring in additional protection for workers in smaller shops, the costs could increase. There are any number of ways of exploring the Bill and its possibilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out, it is some time since we looked into this issue and the Bill provides us with an opportunity to revisit it—writ large rather than in a narrow way. The
  1412
  House should embrace the opportunity to debate the likely effects of the measure and the degree of choice likely to be available to shop owners and proprietors, shoppers and consumers and those who work in shops, large or small. There are many issues that deserve exploration, all of which add some doubt as to the likely scope of the Bill and the consequent burden to the taxpayer of the associated money resolution. All in all, we face a very unsatisfactory set of circumstances.
  Frankly, I am disappointed in my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. He is prepared to offer our party's support—the party that poses as the party of the taxpayer and of deregulation—and sign up to a money resolution at this stage, without even knowing what the Bill in its final form will say. I hope that he will go away and do his homework a little better next time, because that really will not do. When he next talks about deregulation, I shall be sitting behind him, prodding him and reminding him of where we are going.
  This has been another sad little episode in the saga of money resolutions. The Minister brought no glory on himself or on the Government. I look forward to giving the Bill a through going-over in the parliamentary stages that lie ahead, in the hope that we might tease out some more information.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Kevan Jones: On Second Reading, the Bill received widespread support from all parties in the House. It has widespread support in the country as well. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) tried to suggest that only the trade unions support it, but Church groups and—as my postbag shows—ordinary citizens also think that the Bill is proper in its aims.
  The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) said that when the Sunday Trading Act 1994 went through the House many Members thought that Christmas day was exempt. Many Members who were present on Second Reading also referred to that, and this Bill is designed to close that loophole. I found some of the arguments presented by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to be amusing. He suggested that he wanted to improve the Bill: if so, I look forward to his contribution to the debate, but my clear impression is that he wants to wreck the Bill. His speech this afternoon contained a veiled threat that he would do just that when it comes back on Report. That would be sad.
  Chris Bryant: He has never been accused of subtlety before.
  Mr. Jones: People do not accuse me of that either, but the fact is that the Bill enjoys widespread support. I am very grateful for the support expressed by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman this afternoon.
  The Bill will not lead to a substantial increase in costs. The idea that local authorities will have to employ armies of new inspectors to look for people selling products forbidden under the Bill on Christmas day is ludicrous. The officers needed to police the Sunday Trading Act 1994 already exist. There is no need to visit a store, as evidence can be adduced from till rolls and

  1413
  other sources to show whether it was open on Christmas day. Therefore, the arguments that have been advanced do not hold water.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mentioned regulation. We had a long discussion about his view of society, but I believe that a certain amount of regulation is welcome. On Second Reading, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman made it clear that many of the great regulatory Bills in the early part of the previous century were brought in by a one-nation, caring Conservative Government. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman does not belong to that sector of the Conservative party.
  Many of the issues raised this afternoon can be addressed in Committee. I welcome positive suggestions to improve the Bill, but I do not want a repeat of what happened on Second Reading, or even this afternoon. No attempt to stop or wreck the Bill can be considered productive, given the widespread support that the measure enjoys. The use of parliamentary tactics to thwart the progress of a Bill that enjoys the support of the majority of hon. Members reflects no credit on the people involved, or on the House.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: When Ministers support a motion such as this, they should be able to tell the House the Government's estimate of the cost involved. What is the point of a debate on a money resolution if the amount cannot be debated? The Minister seemed to think that Opposition Members were asking some sort of trick question when they wanted to know how much money was involved, but it is the central question in the dispute.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: The Bill's enforcement and publicity costs could be met from existing trading standards budgets, but amendments to it might make further spending necessary. The money resolution covers that eventuality.
  Mr. Redwood: If that is to be done properly, the Government must give the House some guidance on what costs might be involved. The fact that they think that a money resolution may be necessary implies that the Bill will incur costs over and above the moneys already voted by the House under the relevant budget heads.
  The fact that the Minister has said that he thinks that the sums involved will be negligible to the Treasury implies that he has in mind the rough magnitude of the costs. The Minister tries to defend his position by saying that the Bill might be amended, but I want to know the price tag of the Bill, as drafted, for the consolidated fund and for local authorities, which are partly financed by the council tax. Those are important issues because, as the Minister knows, we are about to have some local government elections, in which the extremely high levels of council taxes—especially from Labour and Lib Dem councils—will be the leading issue. Now we have a Minister who seems to want to place more burdens on local authorities, without telling us how much, how the costs will be funded and who will pay.
  1414
  The Minister said that the amount would be negligible to the Treasury. I would have been more relaxed if he had just said that it would be negligible, because that would mean a few pounds. However, "negligible" to the Treasury could be a very large sum. We have a Treasury that thinks that it needs to take more than £400 billion a year from British taxpayers. Well, 1 per cent. of that is £4 billion, which clearly is not negligible, even to the Treasury, and 0.1 per cent. is £400 million, which is probably not negligible to the Treasury. However, 0.01 per cent. could be said to be negligible to the Treasury, but it is £40 million—a huge sum. Is that the sort of sum that the Minister has in mind?
  I come to my main worry about this short but interesting debate. I understand the motivation of those who strongly support the Bill. They do not want shop employees to be put under any pressure to work on Christmas day against their will. Those supporters think that that is a bigger problem than the possibility that some people might wish to work on Christmas day for higher sums, which is what concerns my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I understand that shop workers do not want to be put under any pressure to work on Christmas day, but will pressure be put on enforcers—people who police trading standards and shop practices—to work on that day instead? Why do shop workers have to be protected but not the enforcers?
  We need to know the Minister's thinking on the sums involved in the money resolution in more detail. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) says that he does not think that enforcers would need to work on Christmas day. He thinks that they would be able to collect evidence after the event in the normal course of their duty. However, I suspect that courts of law might want to have direct evidence from an enforcer who had seen for himself or herself that a shop was trading on Christmas day. That means that large sums would have to be offered to existing trading standards enforcers to induce them to go to work on Christmas day—and an element of compulsion would probably be necessary—or a separate army of enforcers would have to be hired specifically for that day. Perhaps redundant Santa Clauses could be hired for the purpose, if they did not have anything better to do on Christmas day. If they were very lonely, they might like to earn the money that the Minister has in mind under the resolution by enforcing the ban on Christmas day trading.
  The Minister owes us an explanation before the debate is over. Why did he say that the sum would be negligible to the Treasury? How big a sum might that be, because it could be quite large? After all, we know how careful Ministers are with the language that they are allowed to use with official advice in such circumstances. We also need to know whose freedoms and liberties not to work on Christmas day might be damaged in return for greater scope for shop workers to avoid doing so.
  Mr. Greg Knight: I am with my right hon. Friend all the way on the points that he has made. Does he agree that the Minister has a duty to give the House some guidance on the level of cost that could be involved? For example, what would it cost if every trading standards department across the UK had only two people on duty

  1415
  on Christmas day? We should be given some idea of the figures. So far, the Minister has failed to give the House the information that it should properly be given.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, as I was about to make exactly that point. There are shopping centres in all our towns and cities and in many of the larger villages, so if the measure is to be enforced properly it will require invigilators to be available at the end of a phone line when evidence comes in, or at shopping centres in person.
  As proponents of the Bill have said, if things get out of hand and shops start to open on Christmas day it will be difficult to control the process. One assumes that a tough enforcement operation would be mounted in the first year of implementation of the proposal, to fulfil the aims of the Bill, so two people per trading standards area might be insufficient. In my district, which has a unitary council, we might get away with only two or three invigilators, as we do not have many shopping centres, but in a county, which is the more normal area covered by a trading standards department, two would be an underestimate, given the large number of shopping centres in such an area.
  Before the debate closes, the Minister owes it to the House to explain why he said "negligible to the Treasury" and what range of forecast that implies, on the evidence of the Bill as drafted—of course, we do not expect him to be a clairvoyant and to know what amendments might be accepted. He should also let us know how many trading standards officers, or their equivalent, will be needed. Will they all be needed on Christmas day or will the courts accept subsequent evidence? I think that is doubtful. If the Minister can answer those points, we might be able to do a decent job of scrutinising the proposal.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Owen Paterson: My contribution will be brief.
  We held an interesting debate on Second Reading, which the Minister attended, and it seems strange that he has given blanket approval of a money order when the measure is not yet in its final form. The Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), rightly said that it had wide support in the country. However, it could be improved and I wrote to him on 7 April, following our debate, to describe an anomaly in my constituency, where there is a splendid organisation for which the measure might have cost implications.
  Mr. Faulks used his demob money to start Stan's Shop in St. Martin's, which was then a very small enterprise. It has been built up into a substantial and successful shop, which, by tradition, opens for two hours on Christmas day. The practice began because children opened their stockings and found toys without batteries, so as a kind gesture to local people Mr Faulks opened his shop for two hours. However, the business has grown—it is now known as Stan's Superstore—and the problem, which is directly related to the motion, is that it is above the 23,000 ft threshold cited in the Bill as the qualification for a large store.
  1416
  As I wrote to the hon. Member for North Durham on 7 April, I wondered whether he might take the opportunity afforded by this debate to let me know whether he intends to reply. We might be minded to table amendments either in Committee or on Report so that my constituents could continue to benefit from the service provided by Stan's Shop, which is—as I said—a local tradition and of great benefit to local people.
  As someone who would like to see the benighted British taxpayer pay considerably less tax, especially in a county such as Shropshire, where we suffer from a ghastly Liberal-Labour regime that imposes hideous council tax increases, I am nervous about the weasel words used by the Minister. I think they mean that he might put the costs of the Bill on to council tax payers. The measure may not affect the Treasury, but it could hit council tax payers, so I should be loth to table amendments that would place further costs on my constituents, who already struggle to pay the tax that is currently being imposed on them.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for North Durham could intervene to let me know whether he intends take up the ideas about which I wrote in my letter of 7 April. I should also very much like the Minister to explain whether "negligibly" means a soft touch for the Treasury because the costs of administering the Bill are to be dumped on the poor old council tax payer.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: With the leave of the House, I wish to respond quickly to some of the points that have been made. Let us not lose sight of what the Bill is about or of the fact that it enjoys the support of many hon. Members of all parties.
  The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) put his finger firmly on the nub of the issue when he referred to the domino effect. In the consultation process, major retailers clearly said that, if one of their competitors opened on Christmas day, the rest would do so, and that they would rather have a rule in place to stop that happening.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) supports competition, and those involved in enforcement would consider what happens on Christmas day. That is how the enforcement would take place.
  This is an enabling money resolution, as always. It is intended to ensure that, if there are extra costs, the money can be forthcoming from the Treasury. As I have said, there may be no extra costs because trading standards officers are already involved in enforcement and the publicity surrounding the changes would suffice.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I will not give way.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has said—
  Mr. Knight: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I have already said that I will not give way.
  As my hon. Friend has already said, this important Bill enjoys a great deal of support throughout our communities and it is about keeping Christmas day special. I hope that he is wrong; I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not about to try to wreck the Bill. People want this important Bill to be passed, and I hope that the House will support this enabling money resolution.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  [Relevant documents: the second report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2003–04, on GM Foods—"Evaluating the Farm Scale Trials", HC90—and the fifth report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2003—04, on GM Foods—"Evaluating the Farm Scale Trials: the Government Response", HC564.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I must inform the House that there is a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate.
  5.1 pm
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Although I appreciate that the previous debate was very important and I do not dispute the right of hon. Members to raise such issues, I was a bit disappointed that it took so much time away from an opportunity for the House to discuss genetically modified crops—another very important issue. I will try to keep my comments brief, so that as many hon. Members as possible get the opportunity to participate in the debate.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned by the fact that the Minister has suggested that there is limited time to debate this matter. Can you confirm that we still have the full three hours?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, we have. In fact, the debate will conclude not later than 8.1 pm.
  Mr. Morley: In that case, I was under a misunderstanding; I thought that the debate would finish at 7 o'clock. I am pleased about that; I may include a little more in my opening remarks. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information.
  The whole issue of GM foods is clearly contentious, complicated and difficult. I have followed the issue closely, both before and since becoming a Minister in 1997 at the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. So I can claim a long involvement in the way that the general debate has been structured, in the Government response and, of course, in the various controversies that surround it.
  Mr. John Redwood: Will the Minister please explain to the House why the Government decided to hold a consultation exercise, which we applauded, but ignored the strong advice from the British public that the Government were rushing and that all this was premature?
  Mr. Morley: The public response has not been ignored; it has shaped our response. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to "GM Nation?", it was always made very clear from the outset that it was not a referendum on GM foods. The whole point of that debate was to allow people to explore the issues and express their concerns, to hear both sides of the argument and to try to engage as many people as possible. It was very much an unusual public

  1419
  consultation exercise, but the public's participation and engagement was useful, and I certainly pay tribute to the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, which organised that consultation exercise.
  I understand people's concerns about GM foods. From the very beginning, I have always had some concerns about the possible impact on the environment. I want to make it clear that the Government's whole approach to GM foods is one in which food safety and the environmental impacts are absolutely paramount, and I shall expand on that in a moment.
  I am sure that I need not explain to the House that we are dealing with a range of opinions about GM. We are also dealing with extremes of opinion. At one extreme, there are people who are involved in the development and marketing of GM foods who do not believe that there is a need for traceability and labelling. They believe that the European Union is acting illegally, and that GM products should have open and unfettered access to our markets. That is not the Government's position. At the other extreme, there are people who, no matter what evidence is presented or how detailed it is, will never ever accept the principle of GM foods. The Government have to find a way through those conflicting positions.
  Mr. Colin Challen: Some people regard this as a free trade issue. The United States has launched an action against the European Union under World Trade Organisation rules. Have the Government taken a strong position in the European Union, and have they persuaded Ministers and others in European countries to defend the EU moratorium and to fight against sanctions?
  Mr. Morley: We have always believed that the EU approach, which is science-based, judges each application on its merits and allows for measures on labelling and traceability, is absolutely right. The challenge in the WTO is based on a mistaken premise. As for the way in which the EU is trying to handle the issue of GM, that is open and transparent, and is not in any way an attempt to apply trade barriers. It reflects the concerns of consumers, both in the EU and other countries, and recognises that there must be a process in the EU, as there must be in the UK. We firmly support that position, and have no intention of moving from it.
  Andrew George: Given that the Minister has said that openness and transparency are pre-eminent in the conduct of this debate, does he regret that we are debating not a substantive motion, allowing all Members a vote, but an Adjournment motion on GM crops and foods, long after the Government have made their initial decision?
  Mr. Morley: I would regret that if this were the first debate on GM in the House, but it is not. There has been a range of opportunities for Members to express their opinion.
  Andrew George: Not in Government time.
  Mr. Morley: It is certainly true that some of those opportunities arose in Adjournment debates secured by
  1420
  right hon. and hon. Members, but there have been discussions in various Committees, including European Standing Committees. Many questions have been asked about GM during Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions and, indeed, other departmental questions. There has therefore been a great deal of opportunity to discuss the issue. This is not an issue where, in relation to EU markets and EU trade, we can have a vote and take a different position from the rest of the EU. Our position must be shaped within EU structures, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, and we must adopt a rigorous, thorough and logical approach. I believe that we have already done so, and we must take the same approach to future applications on GM foods and crops.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth rose—
  Mr. Morley: I am anxious to make progress, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he chairs the Environmental Audit Committee.
  Mr. Ainsworth: Is the Minister implying that, if the EU decided at some point that we had to grow commercial GM crops, we would have no option but to do so?
  Mr. Morley: No, that is not the position at all, although there are complex trade issues, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. We ourselves have developed some of the processes that have been put in place, to respond to the needs of our country and reflect the views of the public, as expressed in "GM Nation?". We have also participated in shaping the EU structure, which must be in place in the single market, as there is an EU competence on food and trade. I believe that that structure is thorough and robust.
  There is a range of players involved, of whom consumers are perhaps the most important. Food safety and environmental safety issues are paramount, but there are also issues of consumer choice. People should have a choice whether or not to buy GM produce. Farmers are another important group. There are farmers who are for GM crops, and others who are against them, and we must listen to both views. The organic sector is important, and we must listen to its views on GM crops and developments. There is the environmental view, which I take seriously, and the food industry view in relation to both the retail and the processing side and on consumer choice and demand.
  Then there is the biotech industry. There are people who think that the biotech industry is all about GM, but I stress that it is much wider than that. It is worth stating that we have world-class institutions in this country and we can be proud of the science and innovation in the UK, which we strongly support. I make no apology for that. Finally, there is potential, and like anything else, that potential—the claims that are made must be rigorously examined and subject to due process. There may well be potential in GM crops, if not now, if not from this generation, then in future. I do not know whether that will be the case, but it is important for all of us to have an open mind and to examine the claims that are made on their individual merits.
  Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend is making the case that the biotech industry is

  1421
  extremely important to this country, that we all support it and that research into GM food and crops should continue, but is it not true that if we did not grow GM crops or have GM food in this country, it would not damage our science base?
  Mr. Morley: It would not necessarily damage our science base, although if one took that position even if a product was demonstrated to be safe and met all the criteria, that might undermine confidence in science. As a general principle, however, I do not disagree with my hon. Friend who, I recognise, has taken a pragmatic and reasonable position.
  I shall not deal in detail with the process that has been put in place, the public debate centred on "GM Nation?", a thorough scientific analysis of all the available information, or the scientific report which brought that together and which I found thorough and helpful. The review by the No. 10 strategy unit looked at the economic case for GM and was no apologist for the GM sector. Again, it was thorough and honest in its interpretation. The field-scale evaluations were the largest and most thorough trial of its kind anywhere in the world. All that has been going on since 1997, so no one can accuse us of rushing into this and of not putting in place a thorough, logical, step-by-step approach to evaluating GM crops.
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: The Minister speaks about debate, but there is no point in debate unless it is reflected in policy. Is he aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), when speaking for the Government in European Standing Committee C on 26 April, spoke for a total of 42 minutes and mentioned "GM Nation?" only once, and that that was only when prompted by other hon. Members? Does that reflect the Government's attitude towards "GM Nation?" and public debate on this important issue?
  Mr. Morley: That is a strange point. In a European Standing Committee, there is up to one hour of questions to the Minister, so it is no surprise to me that my hon. Friend spoke for 42 minutes. I have read the Official Report of the Committee, and I thought she answered the questions that were put to her in a detailed and thorough way. The questions reflected the concerns that emerged from "GM Nation?", which the Government acknowledge. That is why we have been so determined to approach the matter cautiously and pragmatically and on a case-by-case basis.
  Much of the focus has been on the GM maize that was given the go-ahead. It always had approval, I remind the House. It was not given approval—it was given the go-ahead because of the voluntary moratorium. A point that is often ignored is that we are one of the few countries to have rejected GM crops after a thorough field-based evaluation that took into account the effect on biodiversity into account. I am not aware of other countries that have taken that significant step.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I am glad that the Minister has enough time to take interventions. His point is valid, and the Government should be congratulated on conducting field-scale evaluations, which have helped the debate. Does he accept that the unique point about
  1422
  GM technology is its irreversibility? Many changes in agricultural practice were mistakes—for example, grubbing up hedgerows, the movement to monoculture and the move away from some organic practices—but they will undoubtedly be corrected in the United Kingdom, particularly given the reform of the common agricultural policy.
  GM technology releases novel genes that cannot he re-extracted from the environment, and it is right and proper to exercise extreme caution. Does the Minister think that more work should be done on the health impact of GM food? Following the field-scale evaluations of the environmental impact of GM crops, a little more work should be done on the health impact of GM food and the potential for genes to be retained within the human organism.
  Mr. Morley: We should never take where we are for granted, or our current position as the definitive position. I talked today to the Food Standards Agency, which told me about its ongoing research into the effect of GM food on health. Its research relates not only to the current generation of GM products but, for example, to GM oils. The research is ongoing, and our scientific review identified the point, which we take seriously, that more information and more research are always needed. I therefore agree with part of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  Our scientific evaluations have looked for adverse effects of GM products on consumers and the environment. We have considered not only our own research but what is happening internationally, and we will continue to do so—we constantly examine whether our position is wrong and are not complacent. We actively seek further information, which might mean modifying our position, but there is no reputable evidence of adverse health effects from eating GM food. That is the current position, but we do not regard it as the final word and we will continue to research the matter and to monitor other work on the subject.
  The time scale for the evaluation was driven by scientific requirements and not by external pressures, such as trade pressure or demands from the US. In all the time that I have been involved with the matter, I can honestly say that I have seen no evidence of external pressure on the UK evaluation.
  Hon. Members will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced the results of the farm-scale evaluations to the House and how we will take the matter forward. We will implement co-existence measures on potential authorisation for growing GM crops and a potential liability scheme. Although the shape of the liability scheme is open to discussion, the Government believe that it should be financed by the biotech sector, which will produce the crops. The consultation on that matter will be made public before the House goes into recess, and it will continue throughout the summer until the autumn, when we will have an opportunity to evaluate the responses with a view to implementing measures for next year. With the withdrawal of the application for GM maize, no applications will take place in 2005—possibly not even in 2006—so there is plenty of time in which to implement the measures.

  1423
  I accept what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) says about irreversible technology and recognise that it must be a consideration in what we do. I also accept that in considering its potential, one must apply the principle of proportionality. As he will be aware, GM maize is not native to the UK and has no wild relative, and its seeds will not survive a winter in the soil. In the case of that particular product, the technology is not irreversible, but we may of course have to consider the issue in deciding whether other products are to be approved. I am sure that our expert advisory bodies will take that into account.
  Andrew George: Will the Minister clarify the position that the Government intend to take on liability? He has said, as did the Secretary of State in her statement, that he would like a liability scheme to be put in place. However, the Government have made it clear that they do not intend to fund it, and neither, according to its response, does the industry. Given that the industry is not prepared to consider such a scheme, is it merely desirable or absolutely mandatory in relation to any future planting of GM crops?
  Mr. Morley: Our view is that we need a liability scheme to provide confidence, not least in the biotech sector itself. The hon. Gentleman is trying to get me to pre-empt the results of the consultation on the draft proposals. He will have an opportunity to comment on that if he so chooses, as will other hon. Members.
  I want to deal with one more issue before I bring my remarks to a close. Although I may be wrong, I suspect that the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), may want to make a few comments in relation to the Government's response, and I want to take this opportunity to say a few words in advance. Hon. Members who serve on that Committee and on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will know that I regard them very highly and always take their reports seriously. Indeed, I always try to incorporate their recommendations in Government policy—I have been successful in doing that in the past and hope to be so in future.
  Gregory Barker: I am pleased to hear the Minister's comments, but if that is the case why did the Government publish their recommendation just four days after the Environmental Audit Committee published its report?
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman might have allowed me to expand my argument, as I intend to deal with that matter. It is certainly true that we made it clear in our response to the Committee that we did not agree with some of its specific criticisms; and today the Committee made it clear that it does not agree with some of our specific responses, as is its proper and democratic right. That was evident from what the hon. Member for East Surrey said on Radio 4.
  As for the Government's going ahead with the announcement four days after the publication of the Committee's report, I can assure the hon. Member for
  1424
  Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) that on the day the report came out I went through it thoroughly and asked my officials these key questions. Does it contain something new that we need to take into account? Does it contain evidence of which we were unaware? And does it contain something that we have not considered in relation to the approach that was outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? The answer to those questions was no. Everything in the Committee's report had been actively considered by DEFRA and by our expert advisory committees.
  The Committee's principal point was about atrazine, which had been raised in the House on several occasions. We specifically asked the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment to consider that, and members of the Committee will know that the scientists involved in the farm-scale evaluations produced their report in Nature the same day as the Committee's report was published. The scientists' report tackled some of the points in scientific terms.
  We believed that the Environmental Audit Committee was mistaken in not inviting the scientists who conducted the farm-scale evaluations to appear before it to answer some of its specific concerns. It is not for me to tell the Committee whom it should invite; I merely make a comment. However, I note that the Royal Society echoed it in a press release that it issued today. I do not want to say too much about the Royal Society's comments to the EAC because they are a matter for the Committee.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The Minister is perceptive—if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall indeed wish to deal with several points later. The Royal Society did not have the courtesy to send the Committee a copy of any press release today.
  May I commend the Minister on his speed reading? He said that he read our report and considered it carefully on the day we issued it. Given that the Government and the Department experienced difficulty in replying to our previous reports in the usual agreed and allotted time, I commend the Minister on reading in a single day a report that stretches to 250 pages and responding to it with such alacrity.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman may remember that the report was published on a Friday and I therefore read it over a weekend. It made for interesting reading. Of course there are sometimes time lags before responses appear. I am keen to respond to Select Committees as quickly as possible. However, it is not always possible to respond quickly, sometimes because the recommendations are genuinely complex. That was not the case with the EAC report, which contained nothing new that we had not already considered. That is why, after all the years of farm-scale evaluations and preparation, which went beyond the scope of FSEs, there was no case for holding up the announcement, especially as it was already behind schedule and many people were waiting for it. It was only right and proper that not only the House but the many other stakeholders heard the Government's response and the way in which we would deal with applications. We did not believe that there was anything to be gained from delaying the announcement.

  1425
  I am sure that the hon. Member for East Surrey wants to make other points about the matter and I shall listen to him with interest. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality will pick them up in his reply. However, I emphasise that I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point on behalf of the Committee that the Government's response contains several wilful or careless misinterpretations of the report. People who know me know that we would not act in that way and that we try to take such matters seriously. I simply stress to the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members that sometimes we disagree. One cannot always produce a report and expect people to believe that it is absolutely correct, especially if it is not backed up in every case with scientific evidence to contradict the expert evidence that the Committee heard and the Government received.
  All that is not to say that we dismiss the report. As I said, I have taken careful account of it. However, I do not accept the claim that the Government wilfully or carelessly misinterpreted it. We have some disagreements and we have spelt out where they arise.
  Sue Doughty: On the timing of the Government's announcement so soon after the report's publication, the Minister said that several people were waiting for it. I do not wish to be unkind to the Department, but it is not unusual for people to wait for information from it. Who are the people who needed the information so urgently, and why did the Government listen to their wishes as opposed to all the others who await answers from the Department?
  Mr. Morley: This was a three-year process and it was also very public, given the way in which we actively encouraged ACRE to hold an open meeting when it evaluated the FSEs. I would like to pay tribute to ACRE, along with our expert advisory groups and the scientists, for their excellent job of evaluation and for the open and thorough way in which they have done it.
  Although we can disagree on GM—I am sure that we shall hear some disagreements in this debate—I hope that Members on both sides recognise that we need a process for dealing with this issue.
  Mr. Challen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Morley: I am coming to a conclusion, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
  We need a logical, thorough, science-based process that people can understand. We do not accept that there is a blanket case for GM. We have already rejected two licence applications, under the conditions on which they were submitted. The other side of the coin, however, is that there is no blanket case for rejecting all GM applications out of hand. We must adopt a science-based approach and consider each application on its individual merits. We must take into account food safety and the environment, and we must, on occasions, apply the precautionary principle. Where there is genuine doubt, an application might have to be rejected.
  1426
  I believe that that represents the kind of thorough process that the House will support. It is certainly the kind of approach that found support, in principle, in the public consultations, even though I acknowledge that some people do not accept GM in any circumstances.
  Ms Joan Walley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Morley: I was about to conclude, but I know that my hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in this matter, and I shall take this last intervention before I finish.
  : My hon. Friend talks about the role and importance of science and, presumably, the independence of science. Will he tell us where science for the earth fits into all of this?
  Mr. Morley: I am sorry. I did not quite catch that last bit.
  Ms Walley: Science for the earth. My hon. Friend talks about the precautionary principle and about environmental issues. Where does he place those alongside the so-called independence of science?
  Mr. Morley: Science has to evaluate the information that it has at any given moment, and it must be open to scrutiny. In regard to the approach that we have taken, all the main scientific studies have been independently peer-reviewed. Very few of the claims against GM have gone through that independent peer-review process, but that is the kind of evaluation that we expect. A scientific study is not necessarily the final word, and there must be some form of impartial, independent evaluation. That is also part of the process. I hope that I have answered my hon. Friend's point.
  This is a difficult issue, and we are trying to find a pragmatic way through it. We are also sensitive to public opinion, which is why we have been so thorough, careful and cautious. In the end, however, if we are to use a logical, science-based process that can lead to applications being rejected—as some have been—we cannot argue against using the same procedures that could, on occasion, demonstrate that GM products might have certain advantages. We cannot argue that they should be automatically rejected.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: Let me begin by welcoming the fact that the Government have finally made time for this debate on genetically modified crops. It is regrettable that it has taken such a long time for it to be held. It is also a pity that the Secretary of State is not here for it. This is the second time in a week—
  Mr. Morley: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently engaged at the very highest level with the US Administration on issues of climate change. I know how important those issues are to Members on both sides of the House. I have also heard concerns expressed repeatedly about the US's non-engagement in the Kyoto process, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman

  1427
  will congratulate my right hon. Friend on going to the United States to encourage the Administration there to engage in it.
  Mr. Whittingdale: Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation as to why the Secretary of State cannot be here. I would just point out that she has now been absent twice in the space of a week when we have been discussing major issues affecting her Department. This is not a one-off.
  Gregory Barker: We have had to wait years for this debate—this is the first time this subject has been discussed on the Floor of the House in Government time. Given that this is such an important debate, is it not extraordinary that a window of opportunity could not have been found for it during one of the brief periods when the Secretary of State has dropped into the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Clearly, the timing of last week's debate, which was on an Opposition day, was chosen by us. As he points out, however, this is a Government debate, which the business managers have been seeking to schedule for a long time. We welcome the fact that it has finally arrived, but it is a pity that they managed to schedule it at a time when, as must have been known for quite a long time, the Secretary of State could not attend.
  It would have been better if the debate could have taken place much earlier, and if it could have taken place before the Government took their decision to allow the licensing of a particular GM crop. Instead, today's debate is taking place not just after the decision has been taken to allow GM maize, but after the decision of the seed manufacturer to abandon its plans to introduce GM maize into this country. As a result, there seems little likelihood of any commercial growing of GM crops for the foreseeable future.
  Mr. Morley: I want to clarify this matter, on which I touched in my opening remarks, as there is sometimes confusion surrounding it. The Government did not give the approval to the GM maize. We lifted the moratorium. The approval for planting the GM maize was agreed in January 1997.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I accept the distinction that the hon. Gentleman makes. The fact is that essentially the Government gave the green light—[Interruption.] He must accept that the Secretary of State came to the House a few months ago and essentially said that the Government were willing to accept an application for the commercial growing of GM maize.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Both the hon. Gentleman and the Minister are missing the important point. Although the approval may have been given back in 1997, everything about which the Minister has been talking for 20 minutes—the logical process, the science-based process and the evidence-based process—has happened since 1997. It is therefore vital that the House is clear that such decisions are being made on the basis of that process. It is neither here nor there whether or not the approval was
  1428
  given in 1997. It would have been very bad had the approval gone ahead in 1997, because all the logic that the Minister talked about would not have been in place. In a sense, therefore, the hon. Gentleman is right that we are discussing a decision that has been made now, following all the evidence-based research. We cannot dismiss that simply because an approval was given, almost on the off-chance, within the European Union.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is the case that there was a moratorium while the Government rightly conducted the farm-scale evaluations. We have always believed that the Government are right to proceed cautiously, but we still have concerns about the circumstances in which they decided to accept that the farm-scale evaluations showed that GM maize should be allowed to be introduced.
  I want to step back a little and examine the question of GM, which causes profound concern to a large number of people in the country. There are strongly held views on both sides of the argument, and in each of our respective political parties, which I suspect may become apparent during the debate. Many people point out that genetic modification has been going on for hundreds of years. Man has always tried to improve the quality of crops and livestock by genetic manipulation. All that has changed in the last few years is that science has provided a faster and more reliable means of doing that. Such a technique has been established in many countries, and as a result, it is almost certainly the case that everyone in the Chamber has at some time eaten food with genetically modified ingredients, or is wearing clothes that are made from GM fibre. Most scientific opinion accepts that it is safe to do so. Certainly I accept that there is little evidence of serious risk to human health in countries that have allowed genetic modification of crops for a number of years, such as America, Canada and Argentina. I also accept that genetic modification potentially offers great benefits both to farmers who take advantage of it, and to consumers, particularly in the third world.
  Nevertheless there are serious concerns, particularly about the effect of the introduction of GM crops on our environment and on wildlife. For that reason, we have always taken the view that we should proceed cautiously, on a case-by-case basis and only when there is clear scientific evidence that there is no risk. I think the Minister will agree that that is sensible. As I said earlier, that is why we supported the FSEs—on the basis that they would provide the scientific underpinning for any risk assessment preceding the commercial introduction of any particular crop.
  At first sight, the results seemed to show clearly that the introduction of two of the four crops trialled had led to a reduction in biodiversity, while the introduction of one, GMHT forage maize, had led to an improvement. We still have no results for the fourth crop, winter-sown oilseed rape. In their response to the Environmental Audit Committee's report, the Government said that they were awaiting the results with interest.
  Like the Committee, I am sorry that the results for all four crops were not published at the same time. While it is obviously right for us to examine each crop individually, there is no doubt that the public's attitude

  1429
  will be influenced by the overall results. A positive outcome for three out of four will be seen very differently from a half good, half bad result. I should be interested to learn when the Minister expects the Government to be able to release the results of the trials of the fourth crop.
  The Minister referred to the criticism that the Government had reached their decision just a few days after the EAC had reported. In fact, it is worse than that. We know that the decision was actually made in Cabinet during the week before the publication of the report. Indeed, we know that the real decision was made about a month earlier, when the matter was put to the Cabinet Sub-Committee. We know because the minutes of the Sub-Committee were subsequently leaked. It was revealed that the Government had instructed their supporters to
  "prepare the ground with key MPs, particularly those with an interest in science or food security".
  While I sympathise with the Minister, who gave up his weekend to read the EAC's report in order to convince himself that nothing in it had not already been taken into account, we know that the decision had already been made before the report was even published. That shows a degree of contempt for the work of Select Committees. It seems that the Government are so uninterested in Select Committees' views that they cannot wait a while to hear the recommendations and take account of the evidence before reaching a decision.
  Mr. Morley: It is true that the recommendations on the FSEs were put to SCI(BIO), a Cabinet Committee. That is part of the process of government, and part of the process of all Governments. It does not detract from the fact that the process relating to the announcement and the details was under way when the EAC's report was published. The process that I have described—that of trying to establish whether there is anything new—applies here as well.
  As for the winter-sown oilseed, the papers are currently being peer-reviewed. After that the details will be made available, probably towards the end of the year. So that I do not inadvertently mislead the House, let me add that the GM maize approved in January 1997 was the Bt-176 version. The T25 maize was approved in August 1998.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for his clarification on the fourth crop that was trialled, and for his other points. I accept that, obviously, any decision can be reversed until it is announced, and I suppose that it can even be reversed after that. The process goes on, as the Minister says, until the Secretary of State comes to the House. However, it is nevertheless the case that the key bodies that took the decision in this instance reached their conclusions before the Committee had published its report. That is simply a matter of fact.
  In its report, the Environmental Audit Committee raised serious concerns about the validity of the trials and despite the Minister's words, those concerns still need to be addressed. He referred to the concern that in three quarters of the cases, the herbicide regime applied to the conventional crop being compared with GM maize involved the use of atrazine, a herbicide now
  1430
  recognised as devastating to biodiversity that is being banned in the EU from next year. Given that, it is perhaps unsurprising that the GMHT crop was seen to be advantageous to biodiversity, because it was being compared with a crop that had been treated with atrazine.
  In their response to the Committee's report, the Government say that that does not invalidate the trial because it is the herbicide management of conventional maize that is changing, not that of GM maize. However, surely the whole basis of the trials was to compare the effect on biodiversity of the GM crop and its conventional equivalent, and it is that comparison that is now wholly undermined because the comparator will no longer be available in this country. The decision by Bayer CropScience to withdraw its application for seed listing of its GM maize creates an opportunity to look at that matter a little further. I ask the Government to do that, and perhaps to use a comparison crop and herbicide regime that is in current usage today, so that a proper and fair comparison can be made.
  The Committee also, rightly, drew attention to the experience in North America, where there is evidence that the use of GM herbicide-tolerant crops has led to herbicide-resistant volunteers in the following year's crops and that, over time, that has caused the increased, not the decreased, use of herbicides. The Minister has acknowledged that concerns arising from the experience in Canada are important and should be taken into account, but there have been other reports, too. Recently it was reported in Argentina that the use of Roundup Ready soya had led to growing numbers of resistant volunteers, with the result that herbicide use had doubled since the crops were first planted seven years ago. In the breathing space that we have been given, I hope that the Government will look much more carefully at the results of research into the experience of other countries around the world.
  Mr. Morley: I am certainly happy to give that assurance: we do need to look at experience around the world. However, this is a double-edged argument. With Bt cotton, pesticide use has gone down, much to the benefit of the agricultural workers who work with it. We have to take the hon. Gentleman's point into account, however.
  The issue of atrazine was carefully examined by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, and it concluded that the trials were still valid. Atrazine is being phased out not because of its detrimental impact on biodiversity but because it is a very persistent herbicide and because of its effect on ground water. It was also a pre-emergent spray, and it is likely that it will be replaced by another pre-emergent spray, which has a bearing on this matter. Hon. Members will also recall that one of the conditions of the maize trial was that there would be further evaluation in relation to nonatrazine herbicides, even though that was not necessarily required on the scientific advice. A belt-and-braces approach was taken, and we will continue that research.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I accept what the Minister says on the reasons why atrazine has been withdrawn, and I welcome the fact that further evaluations will take place and his assurance that the Government are willing to

  1431
  look at experience round the world. I am not in the business of prejudging the results, any more than he is. We maintain an open mind, in the same way as he is trying to persuade us he does, but it is important that all the relevant research should be carefully examined before we progress further. Our concern, highlighted in the Select Committee report, is that important research has not been properly evaluated before decisions have been reached.
  I do not want to repeat every concern expressed by the Select Committee about the validity of the farm-scale trials, but I am concerned that the Government have not only ignored the findings in reaching their decision but, as has happened again today, have been quick to dismiss them.
  Mr. Robert Key: I commend my hon. Friend's thoughtful and cautious approach, but I am a little concerned about where his argument will take us. He knows that I think it would be to the disadvantage of British agriculture and consumers and our environment to write off for ever the possibility of introducing GM crops commercially. I hope that he will recognise that this debate is dominated by the Select Committee aficionados and that there will almost certainly not be time for many people to speak who do not share their view. I hope that his policy will not be blown off course by a single Select Committee report and that he will maintain a careful and cautious view in the long term.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. He and I have discussed these matters before, and I know that there are differences of opinion on both sides. Our intention is to proceed cautiously, but certainly with an open mind. I hope that he will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate later. I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) to go into more detail on the Committee's specific recommendations.
  Supporters and opponents of GM crops alike recognise that before commercial cultivation can take place in this country there must be a clear legal framework, and I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement of that. The dangers of cross-pollination, contaminating conventional crops, are well known. Many farmers will wish to market their produce as non-GM. Organic farmers, in particular, have invested large sums in acquiring organic status and risk their livelihoods if their crops are contaminated. Organic farming has enjoyed steady growth over the past 10 years, but it is still not sufficient to meet domestic demand. We need a clear set of rules on co-existence before any GM crops are introduced. In particular, the issues of separation distances and liability for contamination must be resolved.
  Mr. Mark Francois: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I, too, serve on the Environmental Audit Committee, and he will know that my colleague on the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker),
  1432
  introduced a private Member's Bill to try to resolve exactly that grey area. Is it not very unfortunate, given that uncertainty, that the Labour party killed it?
  Mr. Whittingdale: Indeed, that was exactly the point I was about to come to. That Bill would have provided a perfect opportunity to tackle these very important questions. I know, having talked to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), that he discussed it with the Minister, who told him that he would listen carefully to his arguments and judge the Bill accordingly. I therefore share my colleagues' astonishment at the fact that he did not turn up for the Second Reading debate, and that the Bill was killed off by one of his stooges about 13 minutes after the debate had begun. He owes my hon. Friend and the House an explanation for the Government's actions, because we and the industry have been left with no real idea of the legal framework for the regulations that are a prerequisite for any commercial planting.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of what happened on that day in relation to the collapse of business, but he may not know that, although the House was inquorate, Labour Members joined Opposition Members in the Lobby. If the Bill was so important, one might have thought that the Opposition would have got enough Members in to support it.
  Mr. Whittingdale: As the Minister was not present that day, he is perhaps unaware that one of his colleagues was directly responsible for what happened. It was one of his colleagues who moved the motion that the House do sit in private, which often results in the business being lost. The Minister has told us of the many opportunities to debate GM in recent months, and he mentioned such debates taking place in Standing Committees and in Westminster Hall. But on the one occasion on which this issue reached the Floor of the House of Commons, the debate lasted just 13 minutes because one of his colleagues killed the Bill off.
  Gregory Barker: I should make it absolutely clear that my Bill was killed off through the direct connivance of Labour Whips, who whispered in the ear of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and got him to do their dirty business. Far more than 40 Members were present in the House that day. One or two very honourable exceptions defied the Labour Whips and entered the Lobby, but the others sat on their hands at the direction of the Labour Whips. That is a matter of record.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The record has now been made clear; perhaps we can proceed with the debate before the House.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I entirely accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. But the point is an important one, because the issue at stake—liability and compensation—is absolutely central to whether GM cultivation takes place in this country.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: At the risk of vexing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Minister was not present when the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) was killed off, it is inconceivable that the Government Whips acted as they did without first consulting the Minister?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on this matter. I see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's point, but we have well and truly aired this subject.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, tempting though it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) down that path.
  I want to say a little more about the important issue of liability. As has already been pointed out, in her statement to the House the Secretary of State made it clear that the Government are not willing to accept liability or to pay compensation for any contamination of conventional crops by GM. Indeed, the industry has made it clear that it, too, is unwilling to accept liability. A survey last year of principal underwriters in the UK found that neither farmers considering growing GM crops nor non-GM farmers seeking to protect their businesses from contamination by GM crops would be able to find anyone willing to give them insurance. So as the Select Committee says in its response to the Government,
  "it appears that the Government is happy to leave conventional and organic farmers exposed to the possibility of severe financial losses and the GM industry free from mandatory inclusion in any scheme to establish proper liability".
  That failure is enough on its own to prevent commercial cultivation from taking place. So in effect, having given a green light to planting, the Government have immediately erected a road-block to any further progress.
  There is one other obstacle to the introduction of GM that is perhaps even more insurmountable: public opinion. All the polls continue to show a clear majority who say that they would refuse to eat GM food, and almost all the major retailers regard assuring their customers that their products are GM-free as a marketing necessity.
  In her statement to the House, the Secretary of State was refreshingly honest. She admitted that the "GM Nation?" debate showed widespread opposition to the commercialisation of GM crops. What is more, as people learned more about it, their hostility deepened. The truth is that, as with other safety issues—the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine; nuclear power stations; mobile telephones—people do not trust the
  assurances that they are given. Until that changes, there is little likelihood of there being a market in this country for GM foods.
  Mr. Challen: A certain degree of party-political disputatiousness—if there is such a word—has crept into the debate. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I have not been able to determine from what he said his party's exact position on GM. It seems to reflect a desire for more scientific discovery of
  1434
  the quality or otherwise of GM, but will he say clearly—so that no one can accuse his party of being populist by saying in its manifesto before the next election that it is against GM, when that may not actually be the case—what exactly he is calling for? Is he, for example, calling for an extended moratorium on GM?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I would hate to be accused of disputatiousness and I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I think that I have already made it clear that we keep an open mind, but wish to proceed cautiously on a case-by-case basis and having regard to clear scientific evidence. My concern—it is also the concern of many—is that the scientific evidence is not clear and that there has been no proper assessment of some of the serious concerns expressed about farm-scale evaluations. It is also important to take account of the experience of other countries that have had a much longer history of GM cultivation. Until such evaluations have taken place, we would not support the introduction of commercial cultivation in this country.
  Andrew George: In the spirit of wanting to avoid unnecessary political disputatiousness and while he is talking about the public desire for GM on the shop shelves, will the hon. Gentleman clarify for the record what market assessments were undertaken by the previous Conservative Government when they gave the necessary approvals for GM soya and tomato puree?
  Mr. Whittingdale: There is a distinct difference between approving the sale of GM products where concerns were expressed about health but where the scientific evidence is pretty clear, and approving GM cultivation where the concerns are primarily environmental. It is those concerns that we believe have not yet been adequately addressed.
  However much the scientific evidence suggests that people should feel able to buy GM products, it is clear at the moment that people are not persuaded of the case. We believe strongly that people should have the necessary information to enable them to make a choice. People want assurances that the food that they buy really is GM free, and the EU labelling requirements certainly go some way towards achieving that, but some concerns remain on that front, too. Some people fear that, despite their best efforts, they may fall foul of the new regulations.
  One particular example cited over the last few days is that of beekeepers, who obviously cannot tell their bees where they can and cannot go. If GM crops are introduced into this country, there is a real possibility of the bees foraging on them. Beekeepers will then he faced with the choice of either testing their honey at considerable expense in order to demonstrate that there is no GM content, or labelling it as possibly containing GM. At the moment, that would almost certainly spell commercial death.
  There remain real concerns about the knock-on effects to industry as a whole and the possible costs that many businesses might incur as a result of the introduction of GM. As I say, however, Conservative Members are not opposed to GM crops in principle. We recognise the benefits to our farmers and consumers that such crops could bring, but many questions remain to be answered before the Government proceed. I have to tell

  1435
  the House that, despite the Government statement last week and despite the Minister's comments this afternoon, the Government have still not provided satisfactory answers to those questions.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate.
  6.4 pm
  Joan Ruddock: When I spoke to a colleague about this debate and my opposition to GM, she simply shrugged and said, "But it's progress, and you can't stop progress." I do not accept that the commercialisation of GM crops is progress. I believe that it is a reckless experiment with our natural environment and human health—an experiment conducted by a handful of companies that have consistently made false claims for their products, evaded public scrutiny and resisted every attempt to regulate their behaviour.
  GM technology was not introduced to deal with problems in this country or the developing world. It was developed by companies seeking to control agricultural practices that would boost their profits—
  Mr. David Drew: And their pesticides.
  Joan Ruddock: And their pesticides, as my hon. Friend notes from a sedentary position.
  The apparently simple genetic modifications made to GM crops to ensure tolerance to their brand chemicals or the expression of insect toxins are quite unlike conventional breeding, contrary to what the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said in his opening remarks. The constructs that create genetically modified organisms are designed to cross species barriers. They introduce foreign DNA, parts of bacteria and viruses, and often carry antibiotic resistance markers. They are inherently unstable, and are expressed in every part of the plant without the control mechanisms that affect the plant's natural genome.
  Yet, despite the obvious differences, the biotech industry has based its safety case on the concept of substantial equivalence—that is, that the GM product is substantially equivalent to the non-GM product. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment spoke about the peer review process, but there is no question of peer review in the substantial equivalence dossiers, as they are produced by the companies involved in GM.
  I shall give an example. Last week, the Government voted in the EU Agriculture Council for a marketing consent to be given to GM sweetcorn Btll on the basis of substantial equivalence. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), last month told European Standing Committee C that the sweetcorn had undergone rigorous safety tests. However, Government scientists had not seen the complete
  1436
  scientific dossier—supplied, of course, by the biotech company—and there is no public access to the data provided.
  Crucially, the testing of the Bt toxin was based on the natural bacteria and not the GM plant itself, even though unconnected insect trials have shown no adverse affects from Bt bacteria, but serious damage from Bt plant toxin. Furthermore, no details could be provided on allergenicity, despite increasing evidence of allergic reactions to GM products.
  For example, in the US, a Bt maize called Starlink, which was designed for animal feed, got into the human food chain. Fifty people reported allergies, some of which were serious, and the company lost $1 billion in recalled food. In Germany, a pro-GM farmer fed his cattle Bt maize. Some of the cattle fell sick, and 12 died. Again, the company paid compensation, but denied liability.
  Do the Government propose to continue to support the marketing of new GM foods in the face of such evidence, on the basis of substantial equivalence? My hon. Friend the Minister said that there is ongoing independent research into food safety. If so, why are approvals being given before we see the results of those ongoing experiments? I shall table a parliamentary question asking him to prepare a list of all the experiments that he says—and I believe him—are taking place.
  Has there been any follow-up to the one study—at Newcastle university—in which human volunteers ate GM, and in which the GM material entered the gut bacteria of at least three people after only one meal? It is vital that we know what the follow-up experiments were. Frankly, I want to know what the Food Standards Agency is up to, because I am not convinced that it has carried out its public duty to protect public health in that respect. If it is carrying out further independent research, why did it say that the dossier provided under the novel food regulation for sweetcorn Bt 11 was satisfactory?
  I turn to the environmental issues that are the direct responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister. I give him credit for responding to the many concerns that we have raised with him and I give his Department credit for initiating the field-scale evaluations. Of course the trials have value in themselves, but the Environmental Audit Committee pointed out that
  "the scope of the trials was very narrow and the results cannot be regarded as adequate grounds for a decision to be taken in favour of commercialisation".
  I could not agree more.
  The experience of commercial growing of GM crops in north America and Argentina reinforces that statement. Argentina's experiment with GM is proving a disaster. That was highlighted when a toxic cloud, caused by farmers using a cocktail of powerful chemicals in a desperate bid to control the weeds in their GM soya, enveloped a rural village. It is worth repeating what the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said—that throughout Argentina GM farmers are now using twice the level of chemicals that conventional soya farmers are using. GM farmers are also resorting to the pernicious pesticides paraquat and atrazine to control herbicide-resistant weeds.

  1437
  A similar pattern of increasing chemical usage has emerged in Canada with GM canola—or oilseed rape, as we know it. Contamination of non-GM crops has wiped out the organic canola industry and 95 per cent. of conventional canola seed is now contaminated by GM.
  The lessons for the UK are clear. Experience to date indicates that GM crops do not fulfil the promises of less chemical use or consistently higher yields, and contamination of non-GM and organic crops and seeds is the norm. The Minister mentioned cotton and the reduced chemical use, but that has been the pattern of all other GM crops—an initial reduction in chemicals used, then year-on-year increases. There have also been spectacular failures of GM cotton crops in some developing countries. GM cotton does not have a clean bill of health.
  The challenge for the Government, in the face of their willingness to permit the growing of even one GM crop in this country, is how to guarantee consumer choice. Can the Minister guarantee that Britain's growing organic industry will not only be protected, but expanded? Can he guarantee the purity of seed stocks? The key issues are liability and co-existence. Rules must be enshrined in statute, as the Agriculture and Environment and Biotechnology Commission has made clear, because voluntary agreements will not work.
  Most importantly, who will be liable when non-GM or organic products are contaminated with GM? The biotech companies have said that they will not pay, and the insurance companies have said that they will not insure. How will the Government's commitment to sustainable farming and the organic action plan survive if GM crops are planted commercially? The Minister said that maize will be safe because it does not cross-pollinate and its seeds do not survive the winter. But we know that contamination occurs through farm machinery, in transport and in other ways. Nothing is safe unless we have adequate separation distances and a proper liability regime.
  Are the Government deaf to the wishes of consumers, 86 per cent. of whom have said that they are not happy with the idea of eating GM food? How can we ensure choice? GM can be detected at the level of 0.1 per cent. and that is the current benchmark used by supermarkets for their GM-free products. To guarantee future production to that level, seed purity must be maintained. Do the Government intend to support the EU proposal for 0.3–0.5 per cent. seed purity, which would jeopardise all future attempts to meet the standard 0.1 per cent. that is now accepted for the end product?
  In only a few minutes, it is impossible to do justice either to this subject or to the comprehensive briefing materials that have been supplied by Friends of the Earth, Five Year Freeze, the Soil Association, Gene Watch UK and the Consumers Association. The Government have had the benefit of a huge amount of advice from their many experts, but none of it is conclusive. The science remains uncertain, the economics unproven and the public hostile, and the myth that GM will save the starving is well on the way to being exploded, yet Ministers constantly vote in European Councils for marketing consents for new GM foods to be sold in this country and were rescued from
  1438
  their desperate decision on the commercialisation of GM maize only by the company's decision to pull out of the UK.
  I appeal to my colleagues to think again, to use the time that is now available for truly independent research on GM, to support the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and to establish a statutory framework for co-existence and liability that will guarantee consumer choice and a future for sustainable farming and safe food.
  6.16 pm
  Andrew George: It is always an honour to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). She has taken a consistent approach and always asks responsible questions on this subject. Debates on GM in the Chamber are always richer for her contribution.
  As the Minister rightly said in his opening remarks, the GM debate has been characterised by extremes, although they are not represented in the Chamber; neither the scientific cavaliers nor the blinkered Luddites have appeared in any GM debate in which I have been involved in this place, although there may be different perspectives on how sound the science should be before decisions should be taken. That is very much the nub of the issue that we are debating. Some people may be less cautious about progress on the issue, but no Member who has taken part in the debate has taken either a blinkered or a cavalier approach, which is encouraging.
  Beyond A-levels, I make no great claim to have significant scientific qualifications that would enable me to pontificate on the subject, so I speak as a nonscientist. In the context of the decisions that have to be made, the scientific focus seems to be on the environmental consequences rather than those for human health, although questions have been put about the human health aspects.
  We might consider the US population as a pilot study for the impact of GM on human health. There are many Cornish émigrés in the USA and I have many family connections there. I love the place and the people tremendously, although I do not share their life style or their political view of the world. We must assume that their current political viewpoints are not the result of eating GM food, so we need other evidence to prove the risks to human health.
  We already know about the possible environmental risks due to the release of GM, so it is appropriate that there should be robust scientific evidence to prove that a GM product would not have an adverse affect on biodiversity or the wider environment. The Government have largely accepted that approach.
  The Minister knows that I remain extremely unhappy with the way in which the Government have handled such debates in this, the pre-eminent debating and scrutiny Chamber in the United Kingdom. I have put my views on record on many occasions, and the cross-party motion that I sponsored—motion 25 on today's Order Paper—certainly emphasises the point that hon. Members in all parties wish the Government to be a little more transparent and open in engaging with such debates in the Chamber.

  1439
  We suggest that the Government table a substantive motion, with a vote, for debate on the Floor of the House, so that all hon. Members can take part and express their views about the Government's approach not just to GM crops and GM foods, but to the whole GM issue, as it affects this country and the decisions that the Government—or at least Government agencies, such as the Food Standards Agency—have to make on our behalf. Such a debate would allow us to give the Minister evidence of the Government's inconsistent approach to GM.
  I have raised the issue at business questions, but on 29 January the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford received the following answer from the Leader of the House:
  "as soon as we are in a position to do so we are committed to having a debate. I am sure that there will be no question of proceeding with any decision until the debate has occurred."—[Official Report, 29 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 398.]
  That clearly indicates that we were due to have the debate before the decision was made, not after the statement to the House on 9 March, and I protested about that to the Secretary of State.
  Although I am sure that the Minister is tired of hearing me say this, I must emphasise that, on that issue and that of the statement on single farm payments, it is simply not good enough for DEFRA Ministers to come to the House to treat the Chamber as a notice board, rather than a debating chamber. Some of us largely support the approach that the Government are taking in both respects, and they would find the debate far better and more consensual if they were able to bring such issues to the House, engage with it and allow open scrutiny, rather than treating the House as a notice board for an hour during a statement.
  Despite what the Minister told me earlier, the statement is the only time that the Government have given to the issue. All the Adjournment debates, all the scrutiny in the Select Committees and all the European Standing Committee debates on the issue have resulted from other Committees and Back Benchers bringing these matters to the Government's attention. I am sorry to labour that point, but I hope that I am driving it home, so that the Minister and Department take it on board and do not make the same mistake again.
  A number of issues were raised in the statement, and the Minister has dealt with some of them to an extent. The Government have decided to accept that Chardon LL maize can be grown in the United Kingdom. They expected that it would be grown from the spring of next year, but the Secretary of State said in her statement of 9 March that Bayer would need to submit fresh evidence if it wanted to renew the licence from October 2006. At the time, I asked—I do not think that the Minister has answered this—why it would be acceptable to grow that maize in the spring of 2005, but not in 2007. There was a further question about the weight of evidence. Given that new evidence will be required for Chardon LL GM maize to be grown in the UK from October 2006, will new evidence be required for other types of GM maize and, if so, what evidence? I do not wish to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, but do the Government believe that, although the industry has made it clear that
  1440
  it is not prepared to fund a liability scheme, one should nevertheless be put in place? The Government are not prepared to fund such a scheme, and I doubt whether the farming industry is prepared to do so across the board, so there is a logjam. If the issue remains unresolved, does that mean that there can be no commercialisation of GM in this country?
  Mr. Morley: I am happy to clarify the position as far as I can at this stage in the process. The Government have made it clear that there should be a liability scheme, just as there should be a co-existence scheme, and I have outlined to the House the steps being taken to put them in place. If, after consultation, a liability scheme is put in place and if it is determined that it should be based on an industry contribution, it is up to the biotech industry to decide whether it wants to operate under those conditions—that is the choice that it must make.
  Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister, but clearly some farmers and growers will suffer unintended consequences as a result of the decision on the commercial growing of GM and may be put out of business. It is therefore important to reassure people who want to retain their edge in the marketplace as non-GM organic growers that they will not be undermined, and that there is a liability scheme to which they can appeal if they are affected. I am grateful for the Minister's assurance, and I look forward to the Government's publication of the consultation documents on the liability and co-existence schemes, both of which are fundamental to the future of the industry.
  The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) mentioned beekeepers. The Minister raises his eyebrows, but perhaps he will clarify the position.
  Mr. Morley: I am grateful for an opportunity to do so. Under the thresholds agreed by the EU, food is deemed to be GM only if its GM content is over 0.9 per cent. Honey could not exceed that level, so it could not be labelled as GM.
  Andrew George: I am sure that the beekeepers of the UK will be reassured by that explanation. They would not want the GM content of any of their products to exceed 0.1 per cent.—the organic standard that some people believe should be the absolute threshold—so I am sure that the Minister will receive further correspondence from them.
  For regions and localities that wish to maintain their market edge the establishment of GM-free zones mentioned by the Secretary of State in her statement on 9 March will be extremely important. There are many places, including my own area of west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, where the majority of growers want to take full advantage of being able to promote their product as GM free. What statutory support will be available for them? The Secretary of State suggested that the matter would be kept under review and that she would consult EU colleagues about the introduction of more robust measures. That is extremely important.

  1441
  If the Government intend to introduce measures to protect farmers, or at least to ensure that growers and farmers have the option of trying to dissuade other growers who may be considering growing GM in their vicinity, it would be interesting to hear what mechanisms might be put in place to allow that to happen. Because a few farmers and growers want to remain GM-free, we should not take the view that no GM should be grown in the UK, but when all the assurances have been given and the Government have made a proper decision based on sound science, there should still be the opportunity for local measures to be taken to protect growers and to enable them to maintain clear market advantage.
  Mr. Drew: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I tabled an early-day motion on the possibility of introducing buffer zones for pesticide use. I know he had some difficulties with aspects of that early-day motion. I spoke to the National Farmers Union, which thought it would be impractical to operate buffer zones for pesticides in this country because land space is so tight. If it is impossible for pesticides, how does the hon. Gentleman think such a measure would operate for GM?
  Andrew George: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I am not a spokesman for the NFU or any agricultural body. Establishing buffer zones for pesticides should be a great deal easier, given that they would not be wind blown, one hopes, whereas pollen seeds could he carried very long distances. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should put his question to others.
  Ms Walley: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments about commercial growers and the ways in which organic commercial growers could maintain their integrity, what does he have to say about people who grow organically for the sheer joy of it? There are hundreds of thousands of farmers who grow commercially, but just as many people who grow in their own gardens. What about people who belong to organic associations and want to carry on growing organic produce in their gardens?
  Andrew George: That is a good point. I am not saying that commercial growers are the only people who should have a say. All those who are engaged in growing and have an interest of one type or another—not merely a commercial interest—should have a say in the way in which policy is developed in the locality. I hope the Government will take that on board when they introduce measures to support the establishment of GM-free zones.
  On 9 March the Secretary of State said that Chardon LL maize could be grown only if it is
  "managed as in the trials, or under such conditions as will not result in adverse effects on the environment."—[0fficial Report, 9 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1382.]
  Although that has been put off as a result of the decision of a commercial company, so we are told, what conditions other than those in the trials would be deemed not to result in adverse effects on the environment, and who will take that decision?
  The Government will find themselves under a great deal of pressure following last week's announcement from the US Administration challenging the
  1442
  moratorium in the EU and threatening to impose a £1 billion fine on the EU for the moratorium. On 28 April 2004, an article in the Daily Mail—not my regular read—stated:
  "America opposes full labelling because it is concerned that once consumers know a product contains GM ingredients they will boycott it, so harming U.S. exports."
  The UK Government have an opportunity to show leadership both in Europe and in the US, and the criticisms that they have behaved like a poodle with regard to the US are possibly unfair. GM offers an admirable opportunity for the UK to use its strong and special relationship with the US to show not only that the UK is proceeding on the grounds of sound science and an appropriate moratorium, but that proper choice for consumers in purchasing or consuming any food product is of fundamental importance, and I hope that the Government argue strongly on that front.
  We cannot take future decisions at a speed that precludes a responsible and cautious approach. Decisions must clearly be based on sound science, and consumers must be presented with an informed choice. The Government must be congratulated on consulting the public and undertaking field-scale trials and scientific and commercial reviews.
  Gregory Barker: Why must the Government be congratulated on consulting the public when they patently ignore what the public says? What is the point of such a consultation?
  Andrew George: I am doing my very best to sugar the pill that I am offering the Minister on this issue. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have criticised the Government for mistiming the public consultation, which was concluded before the publication of essential science on which there should have been a public debate. I take his point that it is absurd to consult the public before the farm-scale trial evaluations report and before the commercial and scientific reports are produced. However, the Government have gone further than many of us expected, given that elements within the Government are more pro-science than the Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
  Gregory Barker: Pro-science?
  Andrew George: I am sorry. I meant pro-GM.
  The Government must take it on board that in future they must gather the evidence and then consult not only the public but this House.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I begin by declaring an interest in an organic retail firm. I also pay tribute to the Environmental Audit Committee report, which was thoughtful—not being a speed reader, I thought that it deserved more than one day's contemplation and that it should have been taken into account before decisions were made.
  Having listened to the debate, the central question is why the Government are so anxious to support GM in the face of all the pressures to the contrary. First, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the public do not want GM. If the Government want to restore trust, it does not

  1443
  help to have a nationwide consultation, find out that 85 per cent. of people do not want GM crops in this country and then proceed in the other direction. Secondly, the supermarkets will not stock it because there is no market in it.
  Thirdly, even the biotech companies are pulling out. I am referring not only to the withdrawal of Bayer CropScience from the Chardon LL application, but to other biotech companies pulling out even from research trials, which have slumped from 140 two years ago to 42 last year and just one this year.
  Fourthly, even farmers' initial enthusiasm has begun to wane. The claim that yields would increase and pesticide use would decrease has turned to dust—literally so in the case of the Argentine pampas to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) referred. That area, which contains a quarter of global GM production, now faces ecological catastrophe as a result of soil erosion. Charles Benbrook, the former head of the agricultural division of the US National Academy of Sciences—I would regard that as a very reliable authority—has found that over the past eight years pesticide use has increased by 50 million lb in the US, where two thirds of the world's GM crops are grown. I would say to my hon. Friend the Minister that that is despite what has happened in relation to herbicide-tolerant maize, and it is caused by volunteers, super-weeds and increasing resistance from new strains of weeds.
  Fifthly, even the Government's wider policies are incompatible with GM. In my view, their central agricultural policy, apart from getting rid of the common agricultural policy, is to generate sustainable agriculture in this country—they are absolutely right to do so—and to implement the excellent Curry report. That is not consistent with promoting GM, not least because of the high and increasing use of chemical pesticides. Moreover, the Government—including, notably, the Prime Minister—have repeatedly made it clear that they support a major extension of organic crops and have pledged themselves to more than double by 2010 the percentage of organic food that is consumed and has been cultivated in this country. That, too, is incompatible with GM, because cross-contamination by GM crops will wipe out the organic sector. There is no doubt that within the small confines of farming in this country that will happen, as it has on the Canadian prairies.
  Given all that, why are the Government still so hellbent on GM, apart from the well known fact that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are so keen on it? The only answer appears to be—
  Mr. Drew: My right hon. Friend did valuable work on this when he was Environment Minister. Does he agree that the most worrying aspect is that the companies are in a win-win situation, because as they supply the pesticides, they have a monopoly not only on the seeds but on the support that goes with them?
  Mr. Meacher: I am entirely aware of why the companies are in favour of GM. If one can monopolise the supply of seeds every year, as well as the pesticides that the seed is genetically engineered to resist, one has made it and the potential for an unprecedented bonanza opens up. However, I am talking about a completely different matter, namely the Government.
  1444
  The only answer to my question appears to be this: Ministers say that under EU law they cannot reject a crop unless it can be shown that it constitutes a risk to the environment or to human health, and the line is that that has not been demonstrated. In my view, that is the heart of the current contention over GM policy. Relatively little evidence is available to promote the conclusions because it has deliberately not been sought. However, even the little that exists is damning.
  The farm-scale evaluations, even with their narrow remit, for which I do not apologise, show that GM oilseed rape and beet are worse for the environment. I submit that the same would probably be true of maize if a less toxic herbicide than atrazine had been used on conventional maize. That will have to happen in future because of the EU ban. Of course, we now have the time—because GM crops will not be planted in this country for several years—to find out by replicating the trials.
  It is known from the chief scientific adviser's review panel report that, after GM crops have been sown, soil pollution can persist for up to 16 years before it is safe to plant conventional or organic crops. It is known that super-weeds and gene stacking generate huge and potentially long-term insuperable problems in north America. It is known that if farmers sought to maximise commercial yields, which they do in the real world by spraying more often or using stronger mixes, it would be bound to create substantial harm to the environment. Let us be frank: it is known that co-existence is impossible because no one can state a separation distance that guarantees the protection of conventional or organic crops from cross-contamination.
  If the Government were genuinely so minded, there is no doubt, at least in my mind, that the reasons that I have outlined are sufficient and consistent with EU and international law to reject GM crops because of their proven adverse impact on the environment. Those arguments could also be used in the case of the World Trade Organisation.
  The evidence for the impact on human health is slowly accumulating. In my view, there is already more than sufficient to argue the case on the precautionary principle, which is written into EU food law, that GM food should not be allowed to enter the human food chain until significant further research is done. My hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said that there was no evidence of adverse effects on human health from eating GM foods. The reason for that is that no one has looked for them. I repeat the well known phrase that the absence of evidence does not represent evidence of absence. It is incredible but true that no peer-reviewed publications of clinical studies exist on the human health effects of GM food.
  However, we know that DNA recombination technology is inherently unstable and leads to substantial scrambling of foreign and host DNA at the sites of integration, with attendant unpredictable risks. We know that the much used cauliflower mosaic virus CaMV 35S promoter was widely incorporated into GM crops before its unsafe properties became known. It not only possesses a recombination hot spot, but it is

  1445
  promiscuously active in making genes over-express in species throughout the living world, including human cells.
  It is clear that the doctrine of substantial equivalence, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford eloquently referred and which was based on a highly prejudicial decision by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1994 and used thereafter as a device to circumvent direct trials of the effects of GM foods on human health, is—I do not mince my words—a scam. It should be dropped if any public trust in the process is to be secured.
  We also know that in the very few cases involving human or animal tests in which the results were seriously disturbing, the research was closed down and no further action was taken. My hon. Friend referred to some of those cases. In the Newcastle study, in which a sample was fed a single meal of GM soya, the GM DNA survived almost intact and transferred to the gut bacteria, which could compromise antibiotic resistance. The Pusztai study found that GM potatoes with snowdrop lectin damaged every organ system of rats, resulting especially in a thickening of the stomach lining, which could be—I say only "could be"—a precursor of cancer. My hon. Friend also referred to the case in which a dozen dairy cows died on a farm in Hesse in north Germany after eating Syngenta's Bt 176 maize. Syngenta paid the farmer compensation, which might be taken as admitting liability.
  The most worrying thing is that, in all those cases, the results were simply rubbished by the scientific establishment as flawed, and none was ever followed up—as normally happens in the scientific world—with further tests to confirm or refute the original findings. In other words, there was a preference for personality vilification rather than genuine scientific inquiry, and I greatly deplore that. All that that succeeds in doing is giving the impression that there is something to hide. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government have given that impression through their handling of the Chardon LL maize research at Reading university.
  What we do know is that GM maize from the FSE trials was removed secretly at night two years ago, to be used as cattle feed and to test the effects on the cows. We were told at the time that the results would be published, peer reviewed and presented to the regulatory authorities. Two years on, none of that has happened. Why? The strong suspicion is that the results were so unpalatable to the GM industry that they were suppressed. When are the Government going to give us the results of those tests and get them peer reviewed—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's time is up. I call Mr. Peter Ainsworth.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: It is a great privilege and a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who knows more about these things than anyone in the House. He was good enough to give evidence to our Select Committee and he was, of course, intimately involved in setting up the farm-scale trials in the first place.
  1446
  The Minister was very interested in the report of the Environmental Audit Committee—not only the one that we published in March but the one that we attached to the Government's response to that report—and he spoke at length about it. I hope that the House will forgive me if I risk creating a rather anoraky and dislocated debate by replying to some of the points that he raised, and by focusing on the Committee's work, rather than dealing with some of the other very important issues, such as those raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on human health. I want to do that not because I am interested in rehearsing old arguments; I want to make new arguments. I should make it clear, however, that I stand by every word of the Committee's report.
  I want to engage in this debate because I believe that the dispute—and it is a dispute—that our Select Committee has with the Government over this issue sheds some interesting light on the Government's whole approach to GM crops. Their attitude towards this issue is very curious, even perverse. It has already been pointed out today that the statement made by the Secretary of State on 9 March about GM maize flew in the face of public opinion. It was contentious and unpopular. I am all in favour of the Government making contentious and unpopular statements, and they are getting rather experienced at doing so, but I do not understand a Secretary of State making such a statement when there is no need to do so. As the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton said, there is no market for these GM crops, and there was no need to make that statement at the time that it was made. The subsequent action by Bayer CropScience suggested that that was certainly the case. So we now have a ludicrous situation in which the Government appear to be more keen on GM crops than the GM industry itself. It is a preposterous state of affairs.
  I accept that the Government went to great lengths to set up a rational process for evaluating the benefits or otherwise of GM crops. I commend them on that. The farm-scale evaluations were just one of a series of measures to which the Minister referred earlier, including the science review, the cost-benefit review, the report on co-existence and liability, and the "GM Nation?" debate. The problem is that the science review highlighted gaps in the science and public concerns about the technology, the cost-benefit review indicated no significant economic benefit to UK agriculture, the co-existence and liability review did not resolve the issues of co-existence and liability, as we have heard this afternoon, and the "GM Nation?" debate resulted in an overwhelmingly negative response from the British people. The farm-scale trials were, in the opinion of the Environmental Audit Committee, equivocal and flawed in their outcome and very narrow in their scope.
  The Minister seemed to be implying this afternoon that the Committee was hostile to the science. We are not hostile to the science or critical of the work that the scientists did. We merely differ from the Government in interpreting the results of that science. Put simply, as a result of the problems with atrazine, we still do not know whether GMHT maize, if grown

  1447
  commercially in the UK, would be better or worse for biodiversity than conventional maize. That is the situation in a nutshell.
  Gregory Barker: Does my hon. Friend also agree that the benchmark against which such GM crops were judged was conventional farming, which over recent years has been bad for biodiversity? We ought to be aiming for a much higher benchmark of biodiversity in the British countryside than the low level to which it has fallen in recent years.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and he will find that I am coming to exactly that point.
  When the Environmental Audit Committee published its report on the farm-scale evaluations on 5 March, we asked the Government—politely, I hope—to consider it carefully before using the trials as a basis for allowing commercial growing of GM crops. The Secretary of State's answer to that request was to make her statement four days later, as we have heard. The Government then justified ignoring our advice on the grounds that our report contained nothing new. They repeated that claim in their response to the Committee's report published today, and the Minister repeated it again in the Chamber. That is the first of many specious and misleading claims made by the Government about that report.
  The report and its contents were only not new in the sense that hardly any Select Committee reports contain new information. We set out not to create new science, as the Minister seems to want to imply, but to analyse existing science, to take evidence from those who had been involved in that work, to draw conclusions, and to make recommendations as a Select Committee. Our recommendations were new, of course, and it was discourteous to the House that the Government brushed them aside with such haste. That raises much bigger questions about the relationship between the Government and Select Committees, but now is not the time to debate that.
  I must also say, although the Minister rejected the claim earlier, that the Government have been guilty in their response to the report of either wilfully or carelessly misinterpreting the advice offered by my Committee. I will give him some examples. In their response, the Government seek to imply that we recommended that the benchmark for better biodiversity, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) just mentioned, should be set higher for GM crops than for conventional crops. We did not. What we said was that if we are to halt the years of disastrous decline in biodiversity in this country, the benchmark for all agriculture should be higher.
  The Government go on to say that we failed to take oral evidence from the research consortium that did the groundwork on the trials, and that that constitutes a "serious weakness". First, the consortium could have submitted more than one and a half sides of unilluminating A4 material in written evidence; secondly, the research consortium was not in charge of the design of the trials—the scientific steering committee was. Of
  1448
  course we took evidence from its chairman, and based some of our conclusions on that evidence. Later, incidentally, we learned from an article in The Guardian that the chairman of the scientific steering committee was a passionate proponent of GM technology. That might raise questions in some people's minds about his appropriateness for the job, and about the independence that he brought to it.
  Next, the Government take us to task for taking evidence from the Canadian National Farmers Union, because it has such a small membership. That is a trivial point, given that the ecological problems caused by GM crops in north America are so well documented and so well known. We have heard this afternoon about the problems caused by super-weeds, extra herbicide applications and so forth.
  The Government then assert that the high proportion of GM maize and rape grown in north America, relative to conventional maize and rape growing, suggests that there are commercial benefits. I suggest that it might mean something completely different. It might reflect the fact that, as the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton and others have pointed out, this technology gets everywhere. It might reflect the fact that it is no longer possible to grow some organic crops in this environment because the GM technology has got out of control.
  Mr. Roger Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ainsworth: I do not have enough time.
  In any case, we were not concerned with commercial benefits at that stage of our discussions. We were concerned with the ecological damage that was being witnessed in north America. Either deliberately or otherwise, the Government missed the point of that argument. I hope that the House is beginning to understand what I meant when I used the phrase "wilfully or carelessly misinterpreting".
  There are also sins of omission. The Committee was particularly anxious for a robust regime to be established to cover liability. The Government's response ignores that altogether. I know that the Minister has said things about it today, but why did he not take the opportunity, when responding to our report, to make the Government's position clear? He did not refer to it at all.
  The present situation is this: the industry has said that it will not pay, and the Government have said that they will not finance compensation if things go wrong. Organic and conventional farmers, and distributors and food manufacturers, will be left completely exposed if the technology is commercialised and if anything goes wrong with it. Fortunately, because of the delay—because the industry has temporarily thrown in the towel—there is still time to put this right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle has suggested.
  It is true that I am personally disappointed that what I hope can be seen as a thoughtful and serious report, running to 250 pages, has been met by a nine-page wonder of tendentious denial and evasion: but I am not motivated by sour grapes, or by a sense of hurt pride on behalf of the EAC. I have raised these criticisms and concerns, and will continue to do so, because I believe

  1449
  that the curious Government response to the GM debate is symptomatic of a wider attitude in some powerful quarters of the scientific establishment, which—alas—appears to include the Royal Society. That attitude is unscientifically based on the ruling hypothesis that GM crops are an unequivocal benefit to mankind. The Minister may not believe that, but it seems to me that people in government in very senior positions are approaching the debate from that angle.
  There is no evidence that that hypothesis is correct. Significant doubts remain. Much more work needs to be done. The public are not satisfied. The debate will go on, however hard the Government try to close it down and however many genetically modified raspberries they, the Royal Society or anyone else may blow at public opinion.
  7.4 pm
  Dr. Ian Gibson: It is a delight to be back in the bear garden with my right hon. and hon. Friends to discuss this issue. I do not know how many times we have discussed it, but it certainly does not go away. Nothing will take away the euphoria that I feel today, not only because of the Government's attitude to this thorny problem but because Norwich City has reached premier status again and will stay there. That makes me feel good.
  We have in Norwich the John lnnes institute, a world-class centre not only for GM technology but for conventional plant breeding. I should declare an interest, although I have not worked in the GM field, because I worked with those technologies in the cancer field. Of course we collaborated and talked about technologies, and I knew of the institute's good work in developing vaccines in plants and its studies in the rice genome, which I think will help plant breeding in the developing world. I should also declare that I am a nonremunerated—not even in GM carrots—board member of the Institute of Food Research, which does excellent work in examining the effects on people's health and on food.
  The point has often been made here that genetically modified crops are being grown extensively in north and south America and in China, although not in Europe. They have in a sense become part of the normal diet in those places, if not in Europe, where there is still contention, despite the fact that 300 million US citizens continue to eat GM soya without any ill effects in a very litigious society, and many Europeans, including people here, have eaten it while in the US, with no adverse consequences.
  Joan Ruddock: I wonder how my hon. Friend thinks it would be possible for Americans to know whether they had a health problem related to GM food, when GM and non-GM foods are completely mixed and those people are not conscious of what they are eating.
  Dr. Gibson: The epidemiology studies carried out in every major centre, including universities in the United States and elsewhere, into the effects of the food, and some experiments in that field, have shown no effects whatever that correlate with the food—although I understand how difficult that is to prove. I do not think that it is incumbent on me to prove that GM food is safe;
  1450
  the people who say that it is unsafe have to prove that. The benefits that GM has given to people, such as the provision of cheap GM soya, have been to the great advantage of the food industry and the people who live in those countries.
  Our Government, too, have done study after study, with chief scientific advisers and others examining the issue. The scientific, social and ethical issues have also been examined by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which has said that
  "there is an ethical obligation to explore these potential benefits responsibly, in order to contribute to the reduction of poverty and to improve food security and profitable agriculture in developing countries."
  That council says that GM food might not be the entire answer—it does not pretend that it is—but that it cannot be ruled out as part and parcel of our support for a developing world in which people are starving, and need food and help with their agricultural development.
  The British Medical Association, too, has made robust submissions that there is no evidence that the foods are unsafe. It seems to me that the evidence is piling up to say that the food is, indeed, safe. I should like to see the real evidence from the other side. Although I do not have the time to do so now, I am quite prepared to take my right hon. and hon. Friends for a GM-free lunch to discuss the evidence that they put forward. I think that I can decimate it. I think that I can make arguments against every single, little experiment that they put forward and give another explanation, although I agree that more work needs to be done.
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made it quite clear:
  "There is no scientific case for a blanket approval of all the uses of GM",
  but
  "Equally, there is no scientific case for a blanket ban on the use of GM."—[Official Report, 9 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1383.]
  Recognising that people believe that the use of genetic modification should be approached with caution, the Government want regulation and monitoring. Some people want a framework of rules for the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops, and many want a clear regime of traceability and labelling so that they can make their own choices. The Minister offered us all that earlier today, which would seem to meet the demands of the public. Even while the Minister and the Secretary of State were saying that, The Mail on Sunday was publishing an article under the headline, "How I proved that GM crops poisoned an entire village", in which a so-called leading expert in GM crops, Professor Traavik,
  "warned of potential catastrophe if GM crops are used in Britain and claimed an entire village in the Philippines was poisoned by American GM crops."
  My hon. Friends will know that that has been seriously disputed.
  Let us consider some of the other things that the media have said throughout this tortuous debate—nearly every newspaper has made some comment. Headlines include, "Are we at risk from mutant makeup?", "GM crops linked to meningitis", "Lifting the lid on the horror of GM foods", "Mutant porkies on the menu", "GM risk in daily food of millions", "GM food

  1451
  'threatens the planet'", "Meat may be tainted by Frankenstein food", "M&S sells genetically modified Frankenpants"—that was from that classic newspaper, The Independent on Sunday—"Is GM the new thalidomide?", and so on. There has been a concerted media campaign to convey such a view of GM foods, and it obviously has an effect on people.
  Mention has been made of Professor Pusztai, who gave evidence to the Select Committee that I now chair and of which I was a member of in the previous Parliament. He told us that feeding rats with genetically modified potatoes caused them damage. His work eventually appeared in a peer review journal, which is fine, but it first appeared in newspapers and television shows. There is no evidence that his results can be repeated. I can cite times and places where people have tried to repeat the experiments and have not had the same results. The essence of science is to be able to repeat experiments in different labs at different times, perhaps under different conditions, and get the same results.
  The scientific community is almost unanimous in support, but the public debate reflects uncertainty. We must ask why the British public are sceptical. I do not want to go into all the questionnaires and so on. Even for someone who is a member of the Committee on the Public Understanding of Science and has worked with the Royal Society and others, it is very difficult to find out what the public, or different publics, really think. In fact, the activism has not been public-led; it has been provoked by newspapers, and people have responded by becoming sceptical. People take a precautionary approach because it is the easiest route to take when there are suspicions around.
  The scientists have not been brilliant; their arrogance sometimes shines through. I have no support for the arrogance of establishment scientists. We must admit it when we are wrong or when we do not know, and we must consider what we need to do to find out. It is ironic that, over 50 or 60 years, plant breeders have used chemical and radiation mutagenesis to create new varieties, with new modifications and genes leaping about and joining together, with no protest. We must ask why there was no protest then, but there is protest now.
  Mr. Roger Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the plant varieties that have been bred are varieties used by organic farmers?
  Dr. Gibson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but it is not true that those varieties are all used by organic farmers. There are other problems with organic crops in terms of some of the chemicals that are used on them, but that has been well documented.
  The public and scientists have a different concept of risk. The public react to risk in very unpredictable ways—smoking is an example—and the scientists sometimes demonstrate arrogance and are too assured about new technologies. That must sometimes be challenged, and it is challenged by the scientific community, but less so by the public.
  1452
  People also worry about what is natural. It is often said that something is "not natural", "not right", "not the way it should be". His Royal Highness—I think I can say this without risk—objected to
  "taking into the realm of man what rightly belongs in the realm of God".
  For him and others, genetic modification is seen as unnatural, articulating a romantic view of nature that sees everything natural as good and anything tampered with by humans as bad. Many people's views do not reflect that view. Scientists do not regard GM as unnatural, but some practices are certainly unethical. Of course, not everything that is possible should be done, although we might disagree on where the line should be drawn. We have to think through the issues and explain how awe, wonder and understanding are part of a scientific reaction to the world around us. But as stewards of the planet, we also have a responsibility to recognise that change is necessary if we are to feed a bourgeoning world population, for example.
  The media have a huge effect on people's views, but pressure groups also have a responsibility in this regard. I do not want to talk about my ex-friend Lord Melchett and some of the irresponsible things that he did in Norfolk, such as trampling fields of GM crops. He was taken to court but got away with it on the basis that he was defending the planet. Various arguments can be advanced on that issue.
  We need to think about scientists' responsibilities, and although pressure groups have every right to object to GM crops, they, too, must consider their responsibilities. When they lose an argument, they must not jump from issue to issue simply in order to win the day. We all have a responsibility to work together. Scientists need to come out of their ivory towers and talk to religious groups and others. We need to form communities who ask questions, but not in the spirit of confrontation and polarisation that, sadly, marks the current debate. Debate must be truly effective, and we must share ideas. By all means let us disagree, but if we are to make progress we must ask the necessary questions and carry out the necessary experiments.
  If anything, the Government have been too soft on this issue; that is the only reason to admonish them. They should have taken a much harder line, rather than listening to 0.00035 per cent. of the population. The science is on their side, and they should go with it.
  7.16 pm
  Gregory Barker: The last time that I discussed this subject in the Chamber, I had my parliamentary legs shot away by the hard men of the Labour Whips Office. I hope that they will be a little kinder to me this afternoon.
  Today, the Environmental Audit Committee published an excellent rebuttal of the Government's response to our own report. In that regard, I pay particular tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who pulled out all the stops.
  I want to focus, my remarks on the twin issues of contamination and liability. They were at the heart of the ill-fated private Member's Bill that I endeavoured to

  1453
  introduce recently, but which will be read again on 12 May. I shall preface my remarks by echoing the points made by the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). Many of my own constituents constantly ask me the very questions that he raised. Why are the Government so determined to rush ahead with the promotion of GM crops before they have had the chance fully to evaluate the science and the real longterm impact—not the three-year impact—of this new technology on public health and biodiversity? Why the rush? Why the extraordinary zeal to promote the interests of GM producers? Why the determination to consider only the science that seems to favour their own predetermined ideas? This agenda is undoubtedly being driven by No. 10 Downing street—perhaps the Minister will tell us today what super-Blairite thinking lies behind this boundless enthusiasm for GM crops. I look forward to being enlightened.
  Why the reluctance to listen to the general public's concerns about GM technology? This is not just a rural or farming issue; it has gained traction with a broad section of the electorate throughout the country. There is a great deal of interest in this issue in rural Sussex constituencies such as mine, but also in constituencies such as Brighton, Pavilion. Mike Weatherley, the Conservative candidate for that constituency, has been campaigning hard against this Government's drive to force GM crops on to British consumers. He speaks for ordinary consumers, but whatever view one takes—
  Mr. Morley: I really do not know why the hon. Gentleman keeps claiming that the Government are promoting GM crops and forcing them on consumers. For goodness' sake, we have had years and years of evaluation and research, which ended with two applications being rejected and one being approved only with conditions—it was on a time limit and has subsequently been withdrawn. It is the present Government who put in place and supported measures for consumer choice. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Conservative Government approved GM soya, they did nothing about labelling and traceability, which were introduced only in 1999 under the present Administration.
  Gregory Barker: First, may I say how delighted I am to see the Minister here today? I am only sorry that he was not here when I last spoke in connection with my Bill. I am glad that he has taken the opportunity to speak today. There is no rush and no haste. Why not wait for the fourth trial to be completed and for the atrazine trials to be restarted? Public opinion is seriously puzzled by the agenda that emanates from we know not where.
  Mr. Morley indicated dissent.
  Gregory Barker: Whatever side of the GM argument hon. Members are on, the whole House should be able to agree on two principles. The first is that people should be free to choose whether they wish to take the risk of using or consuming new products or new technologies, such as GM crops and GM ingredients. The second is that the manufacturers and producers introducing the new technology should be held responsible and be required to pay damages if their GM products prove
  1454
  harmful to the environment or cause damage to the health or livelihoods of others. Those are basic principles, and I do not believe that there is a real division among us about them.
  On the first principle of allowing people to choose to avoid GM, although we already have some GM labelling to assist people, as other hon. Members have highlighted, there are flaws in the system. Even if it were made perfect, there would be a limit on what could be achieved through labelling alone. The problem is that all crop seeds have the potential to mix with other varieties, and GM crops are no different. Cross-pollination can arise easily in many ways—either deliberately or inadvertently by humans or animals carrying the seeds. The problem is that if GM and non-GM crops mix, it may not be possible for consumers who wish to avoid GM to buy GM-free products.
  There are many such consumers. The Government's "GM Nation?" debate found that 86 per cent. of respondents did not want to eat GM products. British retailers have, of course, long recognised that. None of the major supermarkets today willingly stock GM food, but on that issue, the Government seem determined to ignore what the market has made abundantly clear. Right or wrong, whatever the evidence, the British consumer does not want to eat GM food. To preserve the choice that so many of our constituents clearly want, we must prevent the contamination of non-GM crops with GM traits. That requires GM crops being planted according to stringent rules governing separation distances and planting intervals, and strict hygiene regulations.
  We can always debate the detail of such rules, but the basic principle should be that they are decided on a scientific basis to prevent contamination. When I say "scientific basis", I do not mean something done on the back of one paper or another; I mean making the rules after a considered and impartial judgment of all the relevant science in the area and scrutinising the rules rigorously.
  Having met the Minister to discuss my Bill, I know that the Government pretty much share my analysis so far. However, I have been alarmed at the fact that they have been strangely reluctant to take the next logical step in the argument, which is recognition that appropriate rules must be in place before any more GM crops are planted. After all, there is little point in putting rules in place after they are planted—horses and stable doors spring to mind. I shall return to the Government's position after outlining the second of the two important principles—that of liability.
  If GM crops lead to problems or cause harm to a person or to the environment, we must have confidence that damages can be reclaimed from the people who have developed the products. At present, if a farmer found that his crop contained GM plants mixed in among the non-GM crop that he planted, it is likely that the person he planned to sell it to would refuse to buy it. With no major food retailers selling GM food, there is unlikely to be much of a market for a contaminated crop. Indeed, the farmer would himself be liable. He would therefore be left seriously out of pocket, and possibly faced with going bust—even more so if he were an organic farmer. Such a producer must be entitled to

  1455
  recompense from the person who caused his crop to become worthless, yet current UK law offers little hope that he would win redress.
  Current options for claiming damages rely on case law and nuisance. To secure compensation, the victims of economic harm caused by GMOs would have to prove which of their neighbours was responsible. If there are several local plantings of GM crops, proving the source may be well nigh impossible.
  I understand that the Minister broadly agrees with me, and I am sorry that he is not really listening. When he wrote to me, he said that he would listen.
  I am also pleased that the Government have ruled out one solution to this problem: that the taxpayer should pay compensation. Even the Government accept that that is a no-no. However, as with the first principle, there is a difference between the Minister's position and mine, and it comes down to timing. It is unacceptable to allow GM crops to be planted before liability rules are in place. Again, there has been hesitancy on the part of the Government to agree.
  I shall explain that in more detail. In both February and March, I tabled parliamentary questions asking the Secretary of State if she would make it her policy to ensure that liability and contamination rules were in place before any GM crops were planted. On both occasions, I was told that the Government were considering the report that they had received from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, and that they would make an announcement in due course.
  When the GM policy statement was made earlier this month, I studied both it and the subsequent debate carefully. The Secretary of State was asked several times about the timing of liability and coexistence rules, and about when rules would be put in place to prevent GM crops adversely affecting organic and other conventional, non-GM farmers. On each occasion, she said that she "anticipated" that the rules would be in place before any planting happened.
  The word "anticipated" appeared to have been very carefully chosen.
  Mr. Roger Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that co-existence rules would have to be different for each variety of plant? Beet is a biennial crop that is harvested in its first year, so it never comes to flower and does not contaminate other plants. Also, very few organic growers grow forage maize.
  Gregory Barker: That is a fair point. The rules must be different for every variety, but it is possible that some varieties can co-exist in the UK without damaging the environment.
  I tabled yet another parliamentary question after the statement. I was pleased to see that the language in the response had toughened up slightly. The Minister for the Environment told me that he now "intended" that rules would be in place first.
  It can sometimes seem very much like nit-picking when one digs deep into the words used by Ministers, but it is important to do so. In my experience, Ministers
  1456
  and civil servants usually choose their words carefully and speak precisely. The fact that the words "anticipate" and "intend" fall well short of the word "guarantee"—the one that I was after—seriously worries me. However, even if we give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, we must ask how the rules would be introduced.
  I understand that the Minister believes that regulations made under various existing pieces of environmental legislation will cover planting rules, but what level of security and amendment is likely to be given to regulations made under an Act that certainly was not written to cover the many problems specific to GM crops? How, will our constituents have their concerns voiced in the debates on these crucial matters?
  On liability, the position is even less clear. I understand that there is no power to make the necessary regulations to determine a liability regime, so when will we see legislation? I appreciate that the Minister will direct me to the consultation on these matters that the Government have announced. Responses to that will no doubt assist Ministers in drawing up the detail of rules, but legislation must be scrutinised here, on the Floor of the House of Commons, and in the devolved Assemblies. The process must guarantee that that happens before GM crops are planted.
  My private Member's Bill would guarantee that legal, enforceable rifles to prevent contamination and to determine liability were fully debated and approved by elected politicians, and were in place before any GM crops were planted. It does not specify the rules, or in any way interfere with or pre-empt the Minister's planned consultation. Even a Minister starting out with every intention to put rules in place before further planting will find those intentions strained, if drawing up the rules proves difficult—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Minister for the Environment has chosen to leave the Front Bench and go and chat to the civil servants. That is extraordinary and unfortunate, given the exchanges that we have had.
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): Don't be childish!
  Gregory Barker: I am also sorry about the extraordinary remarks from the other Minister, because we were trying to have a sensible debate.
  The pressure to allow planting will build up again, and Ministers—perhaps not this Minister for the Environment, but his successor—may be tempted to allow planting under the voluntary codes that governed the crop trials, in the hope that nothing goes wrong and the gap in the liability regime is not exposed. That simply cannot be allowed to happen.
  The Minister far the Environment was not present, for whatever reason, when my GM Bill received its First Reading last month. However, he is here today and I hope that the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environment Quality, when he winds up, will respond to my arguments and specifically inform us whether the

  1457
  Government will oppose my Bill when it returns to the House on 12 May. There is an opportunity here to build a consensus—
  Mr. Morley: Not with you, there isn't.
  Gregory Barker: The Minister scoffs at that suggestion, and that is genuinely sad. There is some willingness on both sides of the House to try to find some common ground on the issues of liability and contamination, I am sorry that the Minister does not appear interested in taking up that offer.
  7.31 pm
  Alan Simpson: Just under a week ago, I was privileged to chair a seminar in Westminster Hall that sought to address the question of whether GM crops are safe for the environment or for animal or human consumption. We had a distinguished panel of speakers that morning, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). Most of the other contributors had already conducted detailed research into genetic engineering.
  The seminar was driven by scientists and was pro-science. The purpose was to raise a series of scientific questions that required society to engage with the revolutionary nature of the technology with which we have been confronted. I suspect that many of those scientists would endorse some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) about the character of the debate so far. My hon. Friend was right to say that at times it has descended into caricature.
  We need to remember, however, that at the start we were not invited to take part in a debate at all. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton, a former Minister for the Environment, will know better than most that the pressure from the biotech corporations was for no labelling, no debate, no field or farm trials and no constraints on the instant issuing of the consents that they sought.
  The claims that were presented to Parliament fell into the same category of criticism that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North set out. We were presented with some dreadfully fraudulent arguments for the rapid approval of GM crop planting. We were first offered the absurd doctrine of substantial equivalence, which was an insult to science. GM crops were presented as little more than novel cake decorations. Whatever else one may think of GM crops, the science behind them offers a revolutionary breakthrough. It allows science to cross species barriers on a scale and in nays that we have never been able to do before. However, the least that we owe society is to place the science of scrutiny alongside the science of possibility, and that is what we have not so far done.
  The scientists who spoke to Members who turned up at the seminar last week made the case for a Government lead in defining a new science of scrutiny, and the whole House should take that message seriously. I invite the Minister to listen to it and to give the scientific lead for which they were asking.
  Many of those scientists were much more enthusiastic about what they saw as the second generation of biotechnology, which will involve the ability to alter
  1458
  existing gene sequences—to make alterations within a given gene sequence—rather than to play fast and loose by taking genes from one sequence and inserting them in another. They told us that the current science of genetic engineering is either flawed or unexplored and that we need new constraints on what we are willing to tolerate outside strict laboratory conditions.
  The scientists effectively abolished the other big fib that was foisted on Parliament: the notion that even if we do not like GM food—if the public do not want to buy it, the supermarkets do not want to sell it and the insurance companies will not insure the crops—we ought to license GM crops because they will feed the developing world.
  A series of reports from Third World Network showed how country after country in the developing world is finding that GM is a complete scam. They are offered a short-term boost in production in exchange for the surrender of their right to save seed. The consequences for the environment are long-term devastation, while those for human health are unknown. The voices of the poor are asking us to enforce the precautionary principle. Many of them are saying, "Give us other choices about the crops we grow and the ability to use the resources that nature provides us with and we won't need that technology." And nor do we in this country.
  We are not faced with food shortages that require us to take that enormous leap of faith. What we face is the requirement to engage with the problem and set the grounds for a different basis for the science of scrutiny. The urgency is beginning to percolate through. Last year, scientists in France undertook a re-evaluation of five of the GM crops that had received approval. They found that the inserted genes had changed their character. The genes were occurring in a different place in the Bt crop and they had changed their character. The instability of those inserted and constructed genes gave rise to enormous concern among French scientists.
  The French scientists asked for fresh, rigorous trials, as was the case in the problem of the cows that died in Germany. Some of my hon. Friends have pointed out that Syngenta paid compensation in that case, but the scientists were asking for new rigorous trials into the cause of death of those cows. Only one cow was examined, yet 12 had died—from whatever cause—and more had to be slaughtered owing to unexplained illnesses. The scientists wanted rigorous testing of all those animals to find the cause of death. Instead, the company withdrew the Bt 176 maize from use.
  Mr. Morley: I may be able to help my hon. Friend. We asked the German authorities for their opinion on the incident and they told us that the death of the cows was not linked to Bt maize and that a similar number of cows died in almost identical circumstances in the following year, when Bt forage was no longer being used. The German authorities concluded that the cause of death was botulism.
  Alan Simpson: The Spanish authorities reviewed that evidence and made an appraisal of their consents for Bt 176 maize, which had received commercial consent in Spain, and they have now withdrawn that consent. I cite that example in respect of the death of the cows in

  1459
  Germany not because I was looking for an opinion but because I was looking for a scientific appraisal based on more than one bloody cow. That is not a decent basis for scientific scrutiny; it is not good science, and that is the platform on which we must insist that the Government and this country proceed.
  Members have mentioned the problems of the villagers in the Philippines, 100 of whom became seriously ill with debilitating illnesses in the midst of the GM maize area. The research conducted by Professor Traavik identified that 39 of those villagers carried in their blood antibodies to the Bt biopesticide in the GM maize. I am not asking that we necessarily accept such things; I am saying that we must insist on the replication of tests where concerns arise, but we have not had that. All the mention of the Pusztai experiments has not resulted in a replication of the studies that he conducted; nor of those conducted by the authorities in Egypt that found similar problems with gastrointestinal infections in the mice that ate GM potatoes.
  I am not saying, "Shock, horror! We must ban it!" or that we should vilify the scientists who have raised those concerns. All I am saying is that good science proceeds on the basis of replicating the research and subjecting it to rigorous study. We have to demand more tests. There is no demand for consents. Our starting position is that we must say, "No, we can't proceed on a case-by-case basis because we don't have the science to make the decisions." We have to move beyond the benchmarking of substantial equivalence to the testing of transgenes and their toxins.
  One of the scientists told me that substantial equivalence is really daft. If two cows are standing side by side—one has BSE and the other has not—it could be said that they are substantially equivalent. How would we know that they are different? We would conduct tests on the cow with BSE. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who suggested that we should test the genetic modifications, rather than the things with genetic modifications. We should move to direct scrutiny, rather than indirect reference pointing.
  On the liability regime, I do not believe that co-existence will be possible. In truth, I have never understood the concept of being a little bit pregnant. A little bit of contamination will make a product contaminated and unsaleable, and it will threaten to destroy the basis of our organic farming and the non-GM products that fetch a premium in the marketplace because they are what consumers want. What will separate out those things is making the producers of the crops liable for the contamination or the damage that they may cause. That is why the industry is running from that process.
  How do we fund independent research? It is straightforward; we tell companies, "Fine, you seek approvals and produce the GM crops that you want, and then we as a Government will institute independent scientific scrutiny and we'll send you the bill." The costs would be fully recovered from the companies that wanted the consents, but the science would not be dependent on the evidence that the companies chose to release.
  1460
  The reality is that the GM issue has never been about feeding the world, but about who owns the food chain. The companies that are pushing GM through are down to their last card: contaminate or bust—in fact, contaminate or they go bust—and we will see quite unscrupulous efforts to compromise the food chain and our environmental systems, so that people can throw up their hands and say, "You may have been right, but it is out there now: the damage is done and we must make the best of it." We are still able to make a choice: we can still say no, and the best way to say no is for the Government to give a lead in defining a different base on which we can establish the science of good scrutiny.
  7.45 pm
  Sue Doughty: I am glad to have been called in this debate, rather than the one earlier this afternoon. I add my support for the report produced by the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I serve, and for the comments of our Chairman, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). We need to take a wider view of the science—it is not a question of being pro or anti-science. Generally, I am against GM, but in deciding whether it is right or wrong, people should not jump to conclusions. We need to know much more. I am worried about the risks, and science should identify what they are.
  I congratulate the Government on the fact that they carried out those trials—it would be wrong not to give them credit for the care that they took over them. The Committee rightly made criticisms of the trials, but our Government have gone much further than other Governments. We believe that lessons were learned from that experience but, in a supportive manner, we believe that there is more that we need to look at. The trials were a step on the road and not, unfortunately, an end in themselves. There has been endless procrastination, with one test after another, and we need to understand why the Government are so uncertain about the technology. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) spoke eloquently about his research and the reason why he was so uncertain about the technology. We are not saying, "We are agin science." We are not. One of the major companies in the field is based in my constituency, which is also home to a leading technological university that does wonderful science. Whenever I visit, I never fail to be impressed by the quality of its work and the things that it invents and discovers.
  The problem is what we do with those inventions and developments and how we use them. I support the precautionary principle and do not believe that we should let the genie out of the bottle until we have a clearer view of the technology. Part of our debate has focused on the trials at Reading university, in which cattle were fed on Chardon LL maize. The mortality rate of chickens that were subsequently fed on GM maize was twice that of the control group. We need to know more about the effects of GM and its impact on the food chain as a whole. It is not a question of someone asking, "If I eat GM maize, do I get a cold next week?" We need to consider what will happen to our children. At my age, I will almost certainly not have any more children, but we must consider the impact on future generations. In America, people are not yet in a position to see the impact of GM on their descendants,

  1461
  but we already have enough information to see what is happening in other species, and to consider whether those developments were intentional. Are we managing the consequences and do we understand the risks, or are unexpected events occurring? Are we testing for a frequent incidence of such events?
  Science should increase our understanding of the issue. It is valid for people to ask whether we could use GM to improve and increase food stocks. There is a commercial benefit in the technology, which is why people are investing in it. But for what purposes should we use it? In our report, we were concerned that crops in the trials were not grown for maximum yield. Any self-respecting farmer, particularly in the current economic climate, grows crops for maximum yield and uses maximum product, but in the trials, farmers were told that they should not aim to achieve maximum yields and should not use herbicide as often as they would like. The technology was not tested in the context in which it would be used.
  We have heard many reasons why people would like to take the technology further. We should take up the points made in the debate today and consider what else we could do instead of using GM crops, particularly internationally, to improve food production and to invest in peace. Better trading conditions would produce many benefits in terms of food. There must be much wider scientific testing of the impact of all the aspects that we have heard about today.
  I shall close my remarks by expressing the hope that before we go further in the real world, the Government will take on board the fact that we have undertaken only half or perhaps only a quarter of the tests on GM products that are needed.
  7.50 pm
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): Like the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), I believe that in a debate such as this it is the responsibility of the House to consider the public interest, to examine the evidence and to inform public opinion as well as other hon. Members. Perhaps there is more agreement than has been suggested in the course of the debate, as hon. Members try to be careful and precautionary.
  I understand that the House is naturally concerned that the Government might go too far or that decisions might be taken from which it is difficult to come back. However, there has been more agreement among hon. Members in this debate than in some previous debates on the issue. Most of today's debate has been mature and reasonable in tone, although not all the opinions expressed have been as carefully rooted in the evidence and in the science as the opening speech from my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and the robust but fair contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson).
  It was disappointing that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) seemed to visit us briefly from another planet to talk childishly about rush and hassle, when my hon. Friend the Minister made it clear in his introduction that we have no intention of rushing and that we have taken a precautionary approach in these matters. My hon. Friend stressed in his introduction that we have looked deliberately for
  1462
  adverse health effects. While keeping an open mind, we cannot ignore the lack of negative evidence. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House would share my respect for the integrity that my hon. Friend brings to bear on his portfolio in general, and on this issue in particular.
  We need to keep a sense of proportion. We should remember that a limited number of GM foods were authorised under the European Union arrangements in 1996, when the Conservatives were in office. In the interests of balance, I should mention that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) gave UK support for three separate EU authorisations in 1998 for different types of GM maize. That is why the views that he expressed with such passion in the Chamber today seem a little tendentious to Ministers who are trying to deal with these issues now.
  After a little introductory knock-about the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) made two important points about the need to take a science-based approach and to recognise that modification of crops and foodstuffs is not new. I agree with him on that point. We ought to take an objective science-based approach to the subject of GM foods, as to every issue that the public expect the House to deal with responsibly and carefully. I do not think that the public are too surprised if there is an extreme style of debate in the tabloids, for instance, but they expect better from Members of Parliament. Respect for the House is not necessarily helped when an august and expert organisation such as the Royal Society rightly demands that misleading criticisms, not from a tabloid newspaper, but from a Committee of the House, be withdrawn.
  In the light of the comments of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, I was surprised that he did not make more reference to the views of the Royal Society that were set out today. Lord May, the president of the Royal Society, said:
  "I have expressed my disappointment to the Committee that they have still not publicly withdrawn their misleading criticism of the journal papers about GM farm trials. The Committee's statement, about 'significant doubt as to the robustness, validity and relevance' of the results of the farm scale evaluations, was both inaccurate and damaging. The papers describing the results of the trials were subjected to a rigorous independent peer review before publication in the journal."
  Lord May also said:
  "The Committee did not place enough weight on scientific information that has been subjected to peer review."
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Minister give way?
  Alun Michael: Not at this time.
  Mr. Ainsworth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is reading out a press release issued by Lord May, which was not sent to me, and, without giving way, seems to expect me to reply to it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The Chair is not responsible for the content of hon. Members' speeches, and I suspect that this is more a matter of debate than a matter of order.
  Alun Michael: The matter will be debated in due course.
  I want to balance the comments made by the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee with the Royal Society's devastating criticism of the Committee's report. I am sure that those points will be debated at length on another occasion, and I am content to leave the matter there.
  The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford emphasised the science-based approach and referred to changes that have already taken place. We must remember that man has manipulated plants to produce better crops and food for hundreds of years. Indeed, many traditional changes have not been subject to the same scrutiny and questioning as the GM approach. GM may be considered as an extension to a long-term process, as all main food crops are genetically different from the wild crops from which they derive.
  It is possible to do things with GM that one cannot do with conventional breeding, such as combining unrelated species, but that is why we need a vigorous regime carefully to examine possible risks from proposed GM crops to health or to the environment. By the same token, however, GM may offer benefits that conventional breeding cannot deliver, and it would be foolish to overlook that potential, especially over the long term. As with any technology, GM could be used for good or ill, and the right approach is to examine each proposed application case by case according to the evidence, which the Government are doing.
  On a similar point, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) analysed a number of arguments on the use of GM crops that he finds less than convincing. He also made the valid point that the wish to feed the world should not lead us to relax on the science and the evidence. Without going into the detail of some of the cases that I find less compelling than him, I agree with him on that point of principle. Again, it is a question of examining the evidence on a case-by-case basis.
  The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) discussed GM-free zones, and, although I am not sure about the practicality of such an idea, which is certainly not an appropriate basis for legislation, voluntary approaches might be different, and his contribution raised some important issues.
  Perfectly fairly, the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) asked what has been done and considered the examination of evidence as a journey. In effect, she said that we must go down that road, but that we must travel with care and take a precautionary approach.
  I want to underline the key messages in the Government's approach. Our policy on GM crops is precautionary, evidence-based and sensitive to public concerns—we are not in a rush. We have implemented comprehensive and transparent processes, such as the public debate, the science review, the cost and benefit study and the crop trials, to ensure that we reach a
  1464
  position from which we can make informed decisions. We take public concern seriously, and we have weighed public opinion alongside the scientific evidence. Our policy seeks to address the people's concerns, but, as both Government and Opposition Members have said, careful analysis of the lessons from the science must be the primary consideration.
  Our priority is safety, so safeguarding human health and the environment is our overriding concern, which is why we have implemented a strict regulatory regime. Each proposed release of a GM product is subject to a detailed risk assessment, which involves careful scrutiny by independent scientists based not only here, but throughout the European Union. We will agree to the commercial cultivation of a GM crop only if we are satisfied that it is safe.
  Finally, there is the issue of choice. Tough new labelling rules will ensure that consumers can choose between GM and non-GM products. We intend to put in place co-existence measures before any commercial cultivation takes place. Ultimately, it will be for farmers and consumers to decide whether they want GM crops and food. The Government's responsibility is to try to get a coherent policy that examines the evidence, bases decisions carefully on the evidence, and advises and informs the public.
  When we debate an issue that is as divisive as GM—I could mention others that call for an equally balanced and proportionate approach—Members on both sides of the House must try to inform the public by taking a clinical and scientific approach. I acknowledge that that is what Opposition Front Benchers have done today. In so doing, we will help to clarify the way in which we should go forward on the important issue of the future of GM foods.
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed, pursuant to Order [27 April].

  NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That

  (1) the proposal for a draft Special Educational Needs and Disability (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;

  (2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 20th May at half-past Two o'clock; and

  (3) at that sitting—

  (a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and shall then consider the legislative proposal referred to it under paragraph (1) above;

  (b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings not later than two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the legislative proposal referred to the Committee; and

  (c) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Mr. Ainger.]

  Fly-Tipping (Gloucester)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I am delighted to have secured this debate on fly-tipping, which is an issue that, more than many others, fills my constituency postbag. That strength of feeling is probably replicated around the country. I should like to raise several aspects of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has decided to leave du Chelsea-Monaco game to participate in the debate, so I shall leave plenty of time for him to make his comments and for the Minister to respond.
  Fly-tipping is a menace to all those who take pride in their surroundings. The illegal deposit of commercial waste and general household waste—particularly larger domestic waste such as refrigerators, mattresses and garden refuse—is unsightly, to say the least, but its impact can be much more serious than that. Drums of toxic waste, asbestos sheeting, syringes and used drugs present a hazard to the public, and I have found that they have all been dumped in my constituency. Fly-tipping can damage the environment, watercourses and soil quality. It also costs a great deal of taxpayers' money. The Environment Agency estimates that there are about 50,000 incidents of fly-tipping each year at a clean-up cost of between £100 million and £150 million. Irresponsible fly-tippers cause the problems while hardworking taxpayers foot the bill. That is totally unacceptable.
  I know that my constituents agree with me on this, because I recently conducted community surveys, and for those residents who responded fly-tipping was one of the top complaints. It would take me hours to describe to the Minister every situation that was mentioned in the surveys, but one local example was the mess in Abbeymead at the Coney Hill hospital site. A local campaigner, David Purchase, got that mess removed with the help of staff at Gloucester city council. It is a recurring problem, however, and I am conscious that not every neighbourhood is fortunate enough to have a David Purchase willing to take up the concerns of local residents. Nor is everyone as effective as David at getting the necessary action taken, and sometimes people have to wait too long for it.
  In paying tribute to the work that David Purchase and other residents in Abbeymead and Barnwood have done on getting the trouble and mess cleaned up, I also want to ensure that fly-tipping can be tackled without our always having to rely on such doughty campaigners.
  I should like to examine the steps that have been taken so far to tackle fly-tipping and consider how effective they have proved. I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend what else could be done to solve the problem. I believe that the right legislative framework has already been put in place, most recently in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which gave local authorities powers to stop, search and seize vehicles that were suspected of fly-tipping. It also introduced fixed penalty notices and higher fines for repeat offenders convicted by a magistrates court. The most serious offences, including dumping toxic waste, can result in a prison term.
  1466
  The provisions are in addition to the robust powers of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for clearing waste from land, the national database Flycapture, which was launched on 5 April, and the fly-tipping strategy, which was published for consultation on 23 February. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and I are aware of the consultation and we will urge our constituents to participate in it. They have a week or two in which to contribute because it ends in mid May. I want to ask the Minister whether the Department will accept late submissions, because many people in my constituency would be keen to contribute to the process. The measures are welcome and worth while.
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): We would certainly examine the content of any late submissions.
  Mr. Dhanda: I appreciate that, and I thank my right hon. Friend.
  We need to ask why fly-tipping remains such a serious problem, given the legislative framework that I outlined. The reasons can be summed up in two words: "communication" and "enforcement". Although the powers are in place, too often agencies do not work together. That is certainly true of Gloucester. Too often, they do not work together to effect what they have the power to enforce. Sometimes they do not have enough incentive to do that. The manifold communication problems can be greatest locally.
  The county council is responsible for waste disposal, yet the district councils are responsible for its collection. An inherent complication therefore requires effective communication to ensure smooth running of the service. The Environment Agency is also involved locally. Several examples of difficulties have arisen. My right hon. Friend explained the provisions of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 in a guidance note dated 31 March 2004, but the information does not appear to have filtered through to all the relevant local agencies. That is understandable, because it is complex.
  At a recent meeting with staff from my office, an environmental officer from a neighbouring district council complained that the local authority was obliged to pass on to central Government receipts for on-the-spot fines and that local authorities therefore had no incentive to collect the money. I know that that is not the case because, in a written answer to me dated 30 April, my right hon. Friend stated that section 119 of the Local Government Act 2003 allows local authorities to retain receipts for litter fixed penalty notices. That provision came into force on 18 November last year but the officer to whom my assistant spoke was unaware of that. It is therefore important that we convey that message loud and clear throughout the country.
  One district council's environmental officer was not permitted to attend an Environmental Agency training day on fly-tipping solely because she is not an employee of the agency. I would welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on that. I have spoken to Environment Agency employees, who also find that a remarkable state of affairs. It is easy to resolve: the agency should permit relevant officers from local authorities to have access to its training. That is common sense.

  1467
  In addition to the communication problems, there is little incentive to enforce the law and prosecute those guilty of fly-tipping because often it is not cost-effective to do so. For example, I am advised that it could cost up to £2,000 to bring an offender to court, but that would rarely be worth while if the eventual fine were only £50. Surely the penalties must be greater to make the costs worth bearing.
  I have described some of the main difficulties and their causes. I would now like to suggest ways of solving some of the problems. I can assure my right hon. Friend that any help that he can offer will be strongly welcomed by Gloucester city council. Under the leadership of the Labour council leader, Mary Smith, the city council is getting on top of the problem of fly-tipping, and it is keen to get tough. In its manifesto for the forthcoming local elections, Labour in Gloucester pledges to enforce on-the-spot fines for those who drop litter in the city centre. The council will continue the bulky collection service recently introduced in local neighbourhoods and increase the use of partnership clean-ups in conjunction with local communities. I, along with many other MPs, know that those clean-ups are very useful. I recall recently being up to my knees in rubbish with Mary on the Matson estate.
  Gloucester city council's tough approach to fly-tipping is part of a wider strategy to deal with related issues such as abandoned cars. Operation Dodger, Gloucester's joint initiative involving the police, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the city council, has been successful in removing more than 2,000 abandoned vehicles from the city's streets in just two years. Regular street cleaning, graffiti removal, dealing with fly-posting, and the introduction of community support officers have also contributed greatly to the appearance of the city centre, but I would be the first to accept that there is a long way to go. I know that the city council recognises that the measures that have been taken are not enough, and that combating fly-tipping must be one of our priorities, because of some of the recent problems that we have had.
  I would appreciate my right hon. Friend's comments on how we can improve communication and enforcement, to ensure that the hard work of the Labour Government and Labour-led Gloucester city council brings results at local level. The right powers are in place. What steps can my right hon. Friend take to improve communication between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency and local authorities to ensure that they are properly and effectively enforced?
  Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the duty of care regulations imposed under section 34(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to occupiers of domestic property with respect to household waste produced on the property? It is getting to the stage where prosecution and imprisonment are necessary to deal with those who spoil our communities in this way. If that measure applies to other forms of waste, perhaps it is time that it applied to household waste as well.
  The tough new antisocial behaviour laws are good news in the battle against fly-tipping, but the toughest part is making sure that there is strong enforcement. The
  1468
  people of Gloucester have put up with the nuisance of fly-tipping for far too long. I want us to go beyond on-the-spot fines and to start prosecuting those responsible for fly-tipping household waste in the same way as we prosecute those responsible for tipping toxic waste. After all, it is all poisonous to those of us who have to put up with it.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. David Drew rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Hasellhurst): Order. Before I can call the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) in a half-hour Adjournment debate, I need his assurance that he has the permission of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) I and of the Minister to speak.
  Mr. Drew: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall use just a couple of minutes to reinforce the comments of my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him and to the Minister for giving me this space to say a few words.
  Without in any way casting aspersions on the good people of Gloucester, I would like to point out that the problems of fly-tipping do not necessarily remain within the boundaries of the city. Fortuitously, one of my constituents, Mrs. Liz Hall, a resident of Harescombe, called a public meeting on 20 April—at which there were representatives from Harescombe, Haresfield, Brookthorpe, Edge and Painswick—to discuss the very problem to which my hon. Friend has alluded. They discussed the measures that are already in force. Subsequently, I wrote to them about the consultation, and I hope that they will send their comments, either via me or directly to the Minister. Notice was taken of what the Flycapture campaign, which the Government have already launched, was capable of achieving—the use of antisocial behaviour orders and so on—but the main call was for greater co-ordination. Clearly, there was some difference of emphasis between the two authorities, Gloucester city and Stroud district councils, about what measures were being used. From my experience of the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003, I know that greater co-ordination and consistency of action is at the heart of what I hope the Government will do as a result of the consultation.
  In addition to taking careful note of the results of the consultation, will the Minister say how he envisages taking forward that co-ordinating role to include not just different district authorities but, in the case of Gloucestershire, the disposal authority, which is the county council? We must bear down on this serious problem, to give notice to my constituents that enforcement can be much more effective and to ensure that communication is more effective.
  8.16 pm
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) on securing this debate, and congratulate him and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on packing an awful lot into a short period. This is an important issue, and I am pleased that it has been highlighted in the House tonight.

  1469
  Issues such as fly-tipping, litter, graffiti and fly-posting matter to Members of Parliament and councillors because we know that they matter to our constituents. They are part of a continuum that is important in any local area. We know that people want to live in places that are clean, green and safe, and the three elements are linked. I am glad that some of the points that I want to make in response to the debate will be strongly supported by colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office, who share the view that that continuum must be tackled comprehensively by central and local government.
  I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester talk about local initiatives in Gloucester. In my experience, the city and the council have always been at the forefront of crime reduction and of trying to tackle the problems that attend any city centre. The Local Government Association shares the Government's view of the importance of these issues.
  Illegal disposal of waste, or fly-tipping, whether of industrial or casual domestic material, is an antisocial activity that pollutes the environment and reduces the amenity value of local areas. The Environment Agency estimates that fly-tipping costs authorities and landowners between £100 million and £150 million a year to clean up, in addition to the damage to local communities, on which it is more difficult to put a cost. The Environment Agency dealt with 5,000 incidents in 2002, which was nearly a 20 per cent. increase on the previous year. The Government agree fully that there is a need for further action, and we are taking action on a number of fronts.
  My hon. Friend rightly referred to measures to tackle fly-tipping in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which were commenced on 31 March 2004. They include: the power for local authorities to investigate incidents in more detail; the power for local authorities to stop, search and seize vehicles suspected of being used for fly-tipping; and the power for the Secretary of State to issue statutory directions to formalise the division of responsibilities between the Environment Agency and local authorities. That introduces the sort of coherence to which both my hon. Friends referred in their contributions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester mentioned a local authority official who was unaware of a change under section 119 of the Local Government Act 2003 that allows local authorities to keep receipts from litter fixed penalty notices. I find that surprising, because all these issues are dealt with in information and guidance packs that we have sent to all local authority chief executives in England. It has been possible to download the pack from the DEFRA website since November 2003. Perhaps it should not be surprising, however. A lot of changes are taking place, and it is difficult for all local authority officers to keep abreast of everything. Given what my hon. Friend has said, I shall write to chief executives again stressing that the information is available and emphasising the need for it to be disseminated at all levels in local authorities—not just to officials dealing with these issues directly, but to district offices or information outlets where people may need the information in order to address problems raised by people approaching local authorities or, perhaps, citizens advice bureaux.
  1470
  I have also sent all Members an information pack produced specifically for MPs by ENCAMS—Environmental Campaigns—which outlines a series of local environmental quality issues and ways in which they can be tackled locally, either through local authorities or by means of voluntary effort. Perhaps we could all share the task of disseminating information and encouraging people to take advantage of the available procedures, whether statutory or voluntary.
  Information was also issued to many local authorities by ENCAMS through its people and places network, to the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management through its electronic mailing network, and by the Improvement and Development Agency's network. It has been possible to download the information through the DEFRA website since 31 March 2004, and the IDeA Knowledge website is also available. We launched a joint initiative to make the information available, but obviously it is useful only if people know where to find the information. I hope that my hon. Friends and others will draw this to the attention of their local authorities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester asked whether we would extend the duty of care regulations made under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to occupiers of domestic property with respect to household waste. The section imposes a duty of care on businesses to secure a waste transfer note whenever waste is transferred, which must be kept for two years and can be inspected by the agency and local authorities when they investigate fly-tipping incidents.
  Section 34 does not currently apply to householders, but it is a criminal offence, under section 33 of the 1990 Act, for a householder to dispose of household waste outside the curtilage of his or her property other than in accordance with a waste management licence. A review of section 34, setting out the framework of the current duty of care regime, began in March this year. Its terms of reference are being finalised, and I shall ensure that it considers the issue of householders and household waste.
  The Government are keen to help local authorities and the Environment Agency to work together to deal with the problem of illegally dumped waste. The agency and the Local Government Association have agreed to a voluntary memorandum of understanding called the fly-tipping protocol, which is currently being updated and reviewed. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud agrees that involving those organisations in designing the way in which they will work is a good idea. The protocol focuses on the division of responsibilities for dealing with fly-tipped waste, and encourages the development of local agreements. We acknowledge that in the past difficulties have been posed by the boundary line and who should be responsible for what. Both the agency and local authorities are now making a genuine effort to work together and ensure that the approach is as seamless as possible.
  Mr. Drew: My right hon. Friend will be aware that authorities such as Gloucestershire are in the process of letting the contract for their waste plans to private contractors. Is it not reasonable to suggest that this matter could be part of those waste plan proposals, so

  1471
  that we really see authorities working together? Those plans are raising lots of money, and we want to see the most effective use of them.
  Alun Michael: I agree that the most integrated way of dealing with such matters is often the best, but my hon. Friend will also accept that we are working on improving the situation on all those issues, including fly-tipping. It is impossible when going through a process that involves consultation and agreement always to be at the right point when a contract is being let. I agree that, wherever possible, the legislation being put in place, or any new developments, should be taken into account, but life has to go on, and dates for letting new contracts can sometimes be a short-term obstruction.
  Under powers in the Anti-social Behaviour Act, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is consulting on proposed statutory directions to the Environment Agency and local authorities that will clarify the division of responsibilities, ensuring that an effective working partnership can be maintained. Those will also ensure that members of the public know which authority deals with fly-tipped waste, and will encourage better joint working between neighbouring local authorities and among local organisations—a point that my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester and for Stroud both mentioned. I hope that that will help to overcome some of the problems to which they referred.
  The Government are also consulting on a comprehensive fly-tipping strategy, and that consultation closes on 14 May. As I have mentioned, whenever we are dealing with a strategy, we hope to get all contributions in by the date set because that makes it easier for officials who have to analyse the responses so that Ministers can respond to the consultation as quickly as possible. We certainly do not intend to ignore any contributions received after that date, however, if they make new and fresh suggestions.
  Mr. Dhanda: Obviously my right hon. Friend is interested in hearing from agencies, local authorities and the Environment Agency, but would he also encourage individuals in our communities to make submissions?
  Alun Michael: We are always open to submissions from individuals, but they often do not have the comprehensive experience when we are developing a strategic approach. The important thing for individuals is that we make sure that there are arrangements to enable them to go to one point to get the information that they need, and to get action—whether the local authority, the Environment Agency or another body
  1472
  has the direct responsibility. However, if there are contributions from individuals that would help towards our strategy, we are certainly open to hearing them.
  The measures being proposed have five key aims. The first is to ensure better prevention and investigation of, and enforcement against, fly-tipping and other forms of illegal waste dumping. More effort spent on those aspects can mean that less is spent on clear-up, which will result in long-term cost savings. Secondly, we want to make existing legislation more usable and effective. If problems have arisen in the use of present legislation, we want to clear them out of the way. The third aim is to extend the range of powers available in the toolkit so that the Environment Agency and local authorities can be more flexible when dealing with fly-tipping. Fourthly, we want to improve the data and knowledge base so that resources can be targeted. Finally, we aim to ensure that the Environment Agency and local authorities can do their job as effectively as possible, and to ensure that waste producers take responsibility for having their waste legally managed. I underline that point, because people often try to evade that responsibility.
  Mr. Dhanda: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to write to me about my point about training and the confusion over whether the Environment Agency and the local authority can train each other's staff?
  Alun Michael: I will certainly do that. In my experience, joint training is important when there is an interface or an overlap between organisations. I am sure that the problems can be overcome.
  We have also funded the agency to develop a web-based system called Flycapture that will enable all local authorities to submit data easily. Often, we need the data to know which problems central and local government need to tackle together, but it can be onerous to gather the information. The system went live on 5 April 2004, with the first month's returns due by 25 May 2004. That will help us to keep more up to date on how things are developing. The agency and local authorities are required to submit data on the types and quantities of fly-tipping that they deal with, along with summary data on enforcement action taken to deal with the problem.
  We are trying to link what is happening locally with what we can do nationally to support and encourage the co-ordination of action so that people at the local level, where it counts, get a better service from Government, local authorities and the Environment Agency, and we all operate as a team.
  I share my hon. Friends' ambition to improve the quality of service and therefore the environment of people living in their area, and indeed in every part of the country.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Nine o 'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Electoral Register
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.30 am
Mrs. Marion Roe: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the integrity of the electoral register. For some time, I have been concerned that the system for the registration of voters in England, Scotland and Wales is not sound and could lead to election fraud. When I was appointed as an election scrutineer in the Seychelles on behalf of the Commonwealth and in Angola on behalf of the United Nations, one of the first tasks was to decide who was entitled to vote, followed by the cleansing of the electoral roll. Only by setting those important criteria could we acknowledge that one of the basic principles of free and fair elections had been met.
Today, I shall focus on both those aspects as they relate to the United Kingdom. I am sure that we all accept that an accurate electoral register is the cornerstone of any democracy. If it is corrupted or compromised in any way, the process will be undermined and the general public will lose confidence in the integrity of the Administration. Six months ago, I became aware that the names of some of my constituents who were foreign nationals were appearing on the electoral register. I remind hon. Members that an offence is committed when the householder fails to give the electoral returning officer information that enables him to discharge his registration duties, or when the information provided is false.
There may be several reasons why ineligible people are registered to vote. First, the family may lack the knowledge, education or expertise to complete the registration form correctly. Even children may be added to the roll through a misunderstanding of the system and because the roll has been confused with the census. Secondly, some foreign nationals may have little grasp of the English language. When the registration form comes through their letterbox, the householder, who has a duty to complete the form, may not understand the rules and may fill in the names of everyone living at that address. Thirdly, they may know, as foreign nationals, that they are not eligible to vote and have no intention of doing so but add their names to the register because it is extremely useful for obtaining credit cards, parking permits, loans and so on. Hon. Members will know that many organisations use the electoral register as a database to verify someone's residence.
David Taylor: The hon. Lady rightly focuses on those whose names go on to the register but who are not eligible to vote. Does she accept, however, that for every one of those there are likely to be substantial numbers of people who are eligible to go on to the register but do not
442WH
do so and that, in their efforts to make the register complete and accurate, the authorities should also spend time encouraging those who do have a right to be on it to register?
Mrs. Roe: I fully agree. The electoral roll should be accurate, and those who do not register but are eligible to do so should be given every encouragement and all the information necessary to ensure that they can vote in the proper way.
Fourthly, there may be a criminal element in registering a false name: the aim may be to legitimise false identities and to provide cover for illegal activities such as benefit fraud. Fifthly, false names or those ineligible to vote may unfortunately be registered deliberately in order to corrupt the vote and to enhance the chances of a particular candidate in local and general elections in marginal wards and constituencies, in which case ballot rigging becomes very easy.
Moreover, every electoral returning officer throughout the country produces a different electoral registration form, which adds to the confusion. None looks alike. There is no uniform presentation. In some parts of the country, some registration forms are in different languages to assist voters, but they seem complicated to many people who fail to read the small print.
What caused me serious anxiety was the fact that, in general, no comprehensive checks were made on those who put their names on the register. What was worse was that I was told that the act of investigating people whose names seemed foreign could be deemed to be racist and that there was no need to worry because the system was self-regulatory. When I made inquiries about such matters of the Electoral Commission, I was informed that
"If legislation required checks to be made by Electoral Registration Officers, it would be difficult to decide on what criteria these should be instigated and made … if such checks were done on the basis of the appearance or sound of names, such action could well be deemed to be racist and in breach of the law."
Furthermore, the electoral returning officer is unlikely to make inquiries unless there was an objection to the inclusion of the name. The creation of the rolling register system has made it harder for political parties to use the claims and objections procedures. That was acknowledged by the Electoral Commission in its report, "The electoral registration process", which noted that
"it is questionable whether the objection process really does have deterrent value … a more effective objection process is likely to be valuable in the prevention of fraud."
In a written answer on 9 March 2004 to a question that was addressed originally to the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Financial Secretary gave a list of 20 constituencies in which the highest number of registered electors was lost from the parliamentary register between 2001 and 2003.
David Taylor: Does the hon. Lady accept that the largest loss of electors from the register occurred in the early 1990s when the community charge was introduced? Thousands of people who were required to

443WH
be incorporated into the register at that time have still not surfaced. Is that not shocking? Is there not something that we can do about it?
Mrs. Roe: I agree. I hope that something can be done about the problem.
I return to the written answer of 9 March. I remind hon. Members that I am talking about the constituencies in which the highest number of registered electors was lost from the parliamentary register between 2001 and 2003. I draw attention to the constituency at the top of the list, Brentford and Isleworth, in which there was a decrease of 15,486—18.6 per cent.—which the Financial Secretary acknowledged in her reply
"may be due to 'cleaning' of the registers rather than actual falls in the number of electors."—[Official Report, 9 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1417W.]
Portsmouth, South showed a decrease of 11,210 registered electors, a 14.5 per cent. fall. It follows that there are major implications for the work of the boundary commissioners as well, which have yet to be acknowledged and dealt with when assessing ward and constituency boundaries. The information that I have given hon. Members demonstrates clearly the size of the problem.
There is no doubt that the electoral register is being abused. The argument that cases of fraudulent registration rarely appear in the courts cannot support the view that there is no problem to solve. The reason why no prosecutions are taking place is that no checks are being made and no evidence is being exposed. An article in the Daily Mail on 7 February 2004 stated:
"The astonishing ease with which fraudsters are corrupting the electoral system is exposed today. As abuse increases, especially by benefit cheats and illegal immigrants, a Daily Mail investigation has highlighted a culture of inefficiency and political correctness within local councils.
It allowed us to register a fictitious student, called Gus Troobev, an anagram of 'bogus voter', on 31 Electoral Registers, within just a few hours and to obtain 9 further bogus votes in the most marginal seat in Britain. The Mail has no intention of using any of the 40 votes but, theoretically, they could be used by political parties to swing elections."
The quote continues:
"Almost all the Councils we contacted were happy to allow our man to register for elections without asking for any proof of identity. Most of the officials we later asked if Gus Troobev had made it onto the Register said they would not dare investigate an applicant just because he or she had a foreign-sounding name or had lived overseas. Gus Troobev is now on the Electoral Roll of 31 key constituencies from Scotland to the South West of England."
British citizens can vote in all elections—local, national and European—in the United Kingdom. Citizens of the Irish Republic can do the same, as can all Commonwealth citizens. Finally, citizens of a country that is a member of the European Union can vote in local elections and choose in European parliamentary elections whether to cast their votes in the United Kingdom or their country of origin. Under our system of registration, how can a returning officer know whether "John Smith" is British voting in all elections, a Canadian voting in all elections, or an American who
444WH
cannot vote in any elections? It is impossible to know unless a thorough identity check is available on each individual.
In Northern Ireland, the problem of fraudulent voting was confronted and dealt with through the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. We have all heard the motto, "Vote early, vote often." Now, in Northern Ireland, there is individual registration of each voter; the householder no longer has the responsibility to complete the forms on behalf of all residents in the home. On the new registration form, there are four identifiers: name and address, date of birth, national insurance number and a personal signature. Those details can be checked more easily. More important, the voter must produce at the polling station when voting photographic identification documents from a list of options.
On the first register compiled under the new system of individual registration, there were 120,000 fewer names—a decrease of 10 per cent.—than on its predecessor compiled under the household registration system. Thus, the electoral register eventually restored credibility and confidence in the procedure of voting at elections. In December 2003, the Electoral Commission produced a report outlining its analysis of the workings of the new system in Northern Ireland, and made recommendations for further improvement.
In one corner of the United Kingdom, therefore, we have already acknowledged the difficulties of producing an accurate electoral register and have introduced legislation to correct the flaws. What are the Government doing to ensure that the same approach is adopted for the rest of the country, especially bearing in mind that for the first time everyone in the north-east, north-west, east midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside regions will be voting by post for the European elections in June? Is that not putting the cart before the horse? Is it not almost an enticement to vote illegally when ballot papers are put through letterboxes with every encouragement to use them? It appears that the Government are sending out the message that we want as many people to vote as possible, even if they are not eligible to do so
In a briefing issued on 15 January on the Government's electoral modernisation agenda, the Minister for Local and Regional Government said:
"We are committed to making voting more accessible and straightforward for the electorate and to allow people … flexibility in where and when they vote."
Surely the priority focus should be on who is eligible to vote. That should come before the introduction of multi-channelled, e-enabled elections. Of course I support making voting more accessible and straightforward for the electorate—that is, for those who are eligible to vote—and more flexibility should be allowed in where and when they vote, but surely that applies only to those entitled to vote. Returning officers need to be given direction on scrutiny of the electoral register, protected from accusations of racism, harassment and so on, supported and given sufficient resources to fulfil their duties.
A knock-on effect is that the percentage figures on those voting are completely distorted, as many people on the electoral register are not entitled to vote in the first place. The whole matter needs to be addressed

445WH
urgently. There will be a strong possibility of challenges to election results in marginal seats if there is a suspicion that fraud has been committed.
I return to the subject of who is entitled to vote in the United Kingdom. Of course, there are no question marks over whether British citizens should have the right to determine who governs them at local and national level, or represents them in Europe. Citizens of countries in the European Union can vote in local and European elections, and there are reciprocal arrangements for British citizens As a result of the Consolidated Act under the Representation of the People Act 1983, citizens of the Irish Republic can vote in the United Kingdom, and a reciprocal arrangement exists for British citizens in Ireland although they are subject to a residential qualification of three months.
Commonwealth citizens can vote in all our elections under the 1983 Act. There are 53 Commonwealth countries. That means that citizens from 52 countries around the world can come to the United Kingdom and vote in our local, national and European parliamentary elections. For example, if I were an Australian citizen, I could come to the United Kingdom, buy or rent a property and, within months, add my name to the electoral register through the rolling register system. I could then start to vote and to influence which political parties govern following local, mayoral, general and European elections. However, a British citizen could not go to Australia and vote on the same basis, as there is no reciprocal arrangement. The same applies to Canada and India.
In fact, only 14 of the 52 other Commonwealth countries offer reciprocal arrangements to British citizens. They are mostly the islands in the West Indies—Barbados, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana—they also include New Zealand, Malawi, Mauritius. Namibia and South Africa. Even citizens from countries that have been suspended from the Commonwealth are entitled to vote in the United Kingdom.
The question must be asked: is it fair that all Commonwealth citizens are permitted to vote in European parliamentary elections to choose the United Kingdom's representatives in Europe? Our Commonwealth cousins are clearly displaying the fact that they believe that the umbilical cord with the mother country has been cut in this respect, and we should accept that that is their desire. I urge the Government to instruct the Electoral Commission to undertake an urgent review of who should be entitled to vote in the United Kingdom, with reference to our Commonwealth cousins. They, of course, should be consulted on whether they wish to continue any reciprocal arrangements. If so, those arrangements can continue. The others should be consulted on whether they wish to initiate a reciprocal arrangement, or whether their citizens should no longer be able to vote in the United Kingdom.
That exercise should be conducted in the friendliest of terms. so that the fairness of the arrangements can be clarified as far as the British public are concerned. At the end of its inquiry, the Electoral Commission should be invited to present an analysis of the current arrangements, as well as all the workable options available to Government that would demonstrate an
446WH
even-handed system, which is understood by everybody. It is important that the practices of other countries should be considered: for example, some have residential qualifications for voting in some elections rather than a Commonwealth link. There can then be an informed debate on the issue. All the information can then be assessed to produce a coherent qualification for voting rights and can thus restore an acceptance that our democratic system continues to be built on a foundation of freedom and fairness in the 21st century.
The Electoral Commission's report on Northern Ireland's new electoral system was published in December 2003. The conclusion states:
"The right to register to vote, and the ability to exercise that right in elections that are safeguarded against abuse and malpractice is the foundation of any democratic society."
Surely it is right that those sentiments must apply to the whole of the United Kingdom in order to guarantee that our democracy continues to flourish. My constituents want to see secure procedures in place for the registration of voters, which will provide an electoral register that has its integrity constantly maintained. Every loophole that allows our electoral process to be corrupted must be removed and any unfairness eliminated.
9.52 am
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on securing this debate on an important issue that goes to the heart of the integrity of our electoral system. Our ability to rely on the electoral register when conducting our electoral business is the cornerstone of how we conduct our voting and judge the veracity of the results that stem from that process.
In this country, the electoral register has always been a process by which people record themselves for electoral registration. In future years—should an identity card be introduced, for example—that system could be strengthened by the production of an identity card when voting or registering. The hon. Lady mentioned the recent clean-up of the electoral register in Northern Ireland, which employed some of those techniques, However, because the electoral registration system is essentially voluntary, it always has been, and it still is, possible to abuse it by registering in the way that she described.
The hon. Lady drew our attention to a recent article in the Daily Mail, which, as I understand it, outlined the committing of a fairly grave offence—one punishable, I believe, by a substantial fine. My hon. Friend the Minister might consider whether proceedings ought to be instituted against the individual who has admitted in print to the fraudulent registration of a number of voters. The offence has been committed whether or not the person so registered exercises the right to vote: the fraudulent registration is the offence.
Fraudulent registration is possible in a variety of fields, and newspapers delight in pointing that out. If one is determined to do so, one can register for bogus gas and electricity bills, bogus car registrations and bogus passports, and the hon. Lady mentioned several such incidents. Nevertheless, the numbers involved are fairly small. As far as I know, large numbers of Australians are not making their way to Britain to

447WH
register, get a vote and take part in elections, although some may well be making their way here for other reasons.
There is scant evidence of widespread fraud and personation in England, Scotland and Wales in recent years. That has not always been the case: in Victorian times, there was widespread evidence of personation and electoral corruption, with people receiving funds to vote. The Conservative candidate in the 1895 election in Southampton, Sir Tankerville Chamberlayne, gave his address as the first floor of the Dolphin hotel in central Southampton. Six strong men carried him shoulder-high from the first floor and placed him in a cart that they had previously unhorsed. They then pulled him to the Cowherds inn at Above Bar, and he waved to the crowds and threw sovereigns at them as he went. Incidentally, his election was ruled invalid, and a further election was held. These days, however, we have relatively clean and uncorrupt elections in the UK, and there is certainly little evidence of personation, fraud, undue influence, bribery and treating in our electoral system.
A much greater problem for the integrity of the electoral register is the fact that it does not record everyone who is available to vote. The numbers involved are not marginal—indeed, they are very considerable. We can form some impression of the extent of the problem by comparing the census figures for people over 18 in England and Wales in 2001 with the numbers on the electoral register in 2001 and subsequent years. The census shows that there were 40,249,000 people over 18 in England and Wales in 2001, but it is generally recognised that the census under-recorded the number of people by up to 1 million. So, leaving aside the marginal numbers of people who, as the hon. Lady mentioned, can vote in local elections but not national elections, the census itself under-records the number of people who can, in theory, register to vote. However, according to the electoral register for 2001, the number of people registered to vote in England and Wales was only 39,531,000. At only 700,000 less than the census figure, the gap does not appear to be enormous, but given the under-recording in the census itself, approximately 1.5 million people are not on the electoral register who should be.
The figures for registration in subsequent years show not only that the 39.5 million has not been maintained, but that it has fallen each year. In 2002, the number registered was 39,404,000 and in 2003, it was 39,192,000. That is the opposite of what we would expect. The 2001 census indicated the size of the population in 2000; the population would have grown a little since then, so the registration figures should have crept up marginally in line with the growth in population.
From those figures, I draw two conclusions. First, about 1.5 million people are missing from the electoral register. Secondly, in just over two years we have lost a further 300,000 people from the register. The gap is increasing as the years go by. However, there is worse news. If we delve a little deeper into those figures—we can do that thanks to the recent publication of the 2001 census figures for each constituency—we will see a wide variation in who registers where. The hon. Lady was kind enough to draw attention to a recent question of
448WH
mine asking which were the top 20 constituencies of those that had lost a substantial number of electors over the two years in question. The answer included a large number of seats in Northern Ireland—as the hon. Lady said, they were the subject of the cleansing of the electoral register—and a number of Scottish seats. I shall concentrate on England and Wales.
Going more deeply into those figures, we see that a large number of seats have suffered a decrease of more than 5 per cent. in the number of electors between 2001 and 2003. The hon. Lady highlighted two of what we might call the worst offenders, but the list is a catalogue of constituencies—50 or 60—that have suffered a decrease of more than 5 per cent. in their electorate during those two years. The list included Brentford and Isleworth; Portsmouth, South; Leeds, West; Southport; Brent, East; Bolton, South-East; Lewisham, Deptford; Dulwich and West Norwood; Brent, North; Tyne Bridge; and so on. Significantly, those constituencies are overwhelmingly concentrated in inner city and urban areas—and, interestingly, in seaside towns.
A second test of the integrity of the changes that have occurred in the electoral register would be to compare the number of people aged over 18 in each constituency, as set out in the 2001 census, with the figures shown in the 2003 electoral registers for those constituencies in order to see how near they are to the 2001 census figures. Again, I emphasise that—if they are an accurate record—we would expect those figures to be close to 100 per cent. of the 2001 census figures for those aged over 18; indeed, they might even be 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. above the census figures, reflecting the increase in the number of people who became eligible to vote after the census. However, the 2003 figures show that a number of seats have more than 10 per cent. fewer people registered to vote than the 2001 census figure suggests. The list of constituencies seems remarkably similar—Brent, East; Hammersmith and Fulham; Brentford and Isleworth; Brent, North; Sheffield, Central; Hackney, South and Shoreditch; Dulwich and West Norwood; and so on.
The shocking fact is that, although the 2003 voter registration figures for a number of seats are 10 per cent. below the 2001 census figures, some of them are as much as 30 per cent. below. The figure for Brent, East is 70 per cent. of the 2001 census figure; for Hammersmith and Fulham and for Brentford and Isleworth 76 per cent., and for Sheffield, Central 81 per cent. In those constituencies, the number of people who are registering to vote bears no relation to the number of people who are really there—the census actually recorded them even if the register under-recorded them. The figures for overall electoral registration in the country mask such enormous variations, which are systematically concentrated in certain parts of the country.
We can see how concentrated they are by examining some of the seats that do not appear in the list and where the registration is stable. It could be that certain seats have always had a low registration and continue to have one, but they would not show up in the figures because they escape the artificial boundaries that I have set. I have concentrated on one particular county: Hampshire. I see present the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), whose constituency is included in this investigation. If we do the same comparison of those registered in 2003 and the 2001 census figures and we

449WH
examine all of the constituencies in Hampshire we find that most of them record 100 per cent. of the 2001 census figure or more. The figure for North-West Hampshire is 103 per cent. of the 2001 census; for Fareham it is 100.9 per cent.; for East Hampshire it is 103.1 per cent.; and for Gosport it is almost 100 per cent.—99.8 per cent. Again, however, the percentages in urban areas are far lower. The figure for Basingstoke is 94.4 per cent.; for Portsmouth, North 92.6 per cent.; and for Portsmouth, South 82 per cent. Therefore, it appears that in rural and suburban areas, by and large, the electoral registration process is keeping up with what one might expect in terms of population, whereas in urban and inner-city seats, that process is diverging radically from what the census reveals.
I imagine that by now many hon. Members will have glazed over at that recitation of interesting statistics—interesting to me, anyway. Nevertheless, there is a point that I feel is worth emphasising. Those statistics show that the real issue for the electoral register's integrity is that in a number of parts of the country, the registration process is simply not working. That should be of concern to all of us who value the register's integrity, who want the electoral process to deliver a result that the electorate can find legitimate and who want to ensure that when people come to vote in an election, they have the opportunity to do so. It should concern us all that in parts of the country—I have mentioned them—as little as 70 per cent. of the population is registered to vote.
I will make one final brief point about statistics. That drop in the number of electors—the under-registration of electors compared with the census—correlates closely to turnout at elections. The same seats that do not have many people registered for them and where the electorate is dropping in numbers also have low turnouts at elections. In the last election—these figures are not predictions for the next—the turnout figure for Brentford and Isleworth was 52 9 per cent.; for Portsmouth, South 50.8 per cent.; and for Leeds, West 49.9 per cent. That suggests that we have, to coin a phrase, a double whammy. We talk about a worrying drop in turnout, but in some instances we are talking about 50 per cent. of 70 per cent. That means that the actual turnout in some constituencies is 35 to 40 per cent. of those who, theoretically, could vote. Again, that raises fundamental concerns about the integrity of the electoral register and the legitimacy of our electoral system.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is making a clinical presentation, which is certainly relevant and interesting The one thing that he has not touched on is why people do not register to vote. People intentionally do not do so, for various reasons. Will the hon. Gentleman speculate on why, in many urban and inner-city areas, people do not register to vote? Failure to register is intentional; it is not accidental.
Dr. Whitehead: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing what one might call a sub-heading for my next set of observations. He is quite right: showing that there is cause to be concerned is not entirely sufficient. What we need to do is consider why the figures are as they are—albeit briefly, as I am aware that other hon. Members wish to contribute and I do not want to stay beyond my welcome.
450WH
It is true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that some people simply do not wish to register and will take steps to avoid doing so. It is also true, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) pointed out, that it was suggested in the early 1990s that a community charge register be set up separately from the electoral register. That can be counted among the effects of the poll tax. In theory, one would not have to look at one register to discover who was liable on the other. Local authorities were charged with establishing the two registers in parallel—an absurd process. However, a relatively large number of people thought that they would be, as it were, spotted for council tax charges if they registered and there was a substantial drop in registration. We have been recovering from that since, although, as I said, the figures from recent years suggest that we are not recovering and are in fact going in the opposite direction.
It is true that some people evade registration, but it is also true that in urban and inner-city areas the population is relatively mobile. The traditional methods of getting hold of people, which require them to be present at a certain time, have not enabled some people in such areas to be registered.
Mrs. Roe: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there are people who are registered on an electoral register somewhere else in the country? For example, many students will be on the electoral roll at home—where they come from—rather than in the inner-city area where they attend university or college.
Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Lady makes a point that is certainly valid, but universities are by no means located only in inner-city and urban areas. Since we are in the market for interesting statistics this morning—
Sir Patrick Cormack: We have had quite a few, have we not?
Dr. Whitehead: Indeed, and I thought that we might have one more. The city of Southampton has more students per head of population than Cambridge, yet neither is an inner-city area and both have a large number of students.
I have highlighted urban and the inner-city areas as places where the electoral registration system seems to be going seriously wrong. The problem is probably related to a number of the factors that we have discussed. It could be that some students and people who are fairly mobile or transient do not register and that registration forms do not reach people who change address. To an increasing extent, people do not read official material that comes through their letterboxes, and attempts by electoral registration officers to secure registration by traditional means—letters, reminders and canvassing—fail even when people are there and could register.
The returning officers in some of the constituencies that I have mentioned explain the considerable drop in registrations by saying that they have cleaned up their registers, as has been done in Northern Ireland. They have removed the names of people whom they have not managed to contact in the past year. The problem is not that the people are not there, but that they have not been

451WH
contacted. Increasingly, in urban and inner-city areas, those who are registered are those who can register and who have been contacted by traditional methods.
My plea is that we should find ways to make registration easier and to contact people who are transient. Other methods of registering should be investigated; then, we might get a register that has integrity. I agree with the hon. Member for Broxbourne that having a register with integrity is a way to ensure that our elections are legitimate and that people believe that the outcome has been achieved by a means that they can endorse.
10.17 am
Sir Patrick Cormack: It is a great pleasure to address this sitting of Westminster Hall under your chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for the opportunity. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) has made a compelling, if not concise, case for compulsory registration, carefully and clinically supervised. I have some sympathy with that. To have the vote is a privilege as well as a right.
There is a case, which we could explore on another occasion—although the Minister might like to take the idea on board now—for holding a special census, with compulsory registration, and for everybody who registers for it to be on an electoral register. However, such a census, properly supervised, could happen only if there were rigorous safeguards to ensure that everybody was legitimately registered. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) has done a great service not only to us here but to the House. I regret the fact that the debate is not taking place on the Floor of the House with a great many Members present, because she has highlighted an important issue and, as was apparent from her admirable and comprehensive opening speech, she has done a great deal of homework on it.
For a year, I have chaired my party's committee that liaises with the Electoral Commission. My hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne, for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) sit on that committee, and we have had some useful discussions with Mr. Sam Younger and his colleagues. We have sought several times to highlight the problem of the register's integrity. On 24 March, I wrote to the Minister making some of the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. I found his response a touch complacent.
Two separate issues have been raised today. The first, which needs to be addressed, is that described by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. The other, which is what we are really debating, is the fact that people register with bogus identities. There is a suspicion that that problem might be much more widespread than we know. In many cases, electoral registration offices seem reluctant to probe the identity and credentials of those who register. It is no answer to that to say that one is committing a criminal offence if one registers in a bogus manner, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne has pointed out, many people find the form somewhat complex, and many come from other cultures and speak languages that are not English. They may therefore not be sufficiently conversant with the process.
452WH
There ought to be a process throughout the United Kingdom similar to that adopted in Northern Ireland. In his letter to me, the Minister says that the results and experience of the new Northern Ireland system are being considered. I hope that that is the case and that the system is being looked at expeditiously.
I hope that the Minister will say a little more about that. He is a highly intelligent man, and he is as concerned as I am about the integrity of the registry. He will acknowledge that it would be a problem if even half a dozen people got on a constituency register who were not entitled to be there. While accepting the limitations of the law, and that the law takes time to change, he should send a strongly worded letter to all electoral registration officers immediately, before the elections on 10 June. He should ask whether they are satisfied that they have conducted investigations into the integrity of their register and urge them to be particularly rigorous in future in ensuring that those who seek to register are entitled to do so.
The constituency situation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne is worrying, and she is right to be concerned. We also know, and my hon. Friend referred to it, that we are approaching an election in which virtually half the population of England and about a third of the UK population—I think that those are the figures—will vote by post. That is a very large number of people. The Minister screws up his eyes at my arithmetic; perhaps I have it slightly wrong, but it is not very wrong. Certainly about half the electorate in England will vote by post on 10 June. That will be compulsory postal voting, which we have debated in the House. The Minister knows that I was very unhappy that the advice of the Electoral Commission was not followed more closely. However, that is over and done with. The House has decided; Parliament has decreed.
We are none the less concerned that people not necessarily entitled to be on the register will automatically receive postal votes and be encouraged to return them. That may well compound the situation that my hon. Friend has highlighted. If we are to move towards more widespread postal voting—I shall be sorry if we do so on a compulsory basis—we must be even more vigilant about the compilation of the electoral register.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Does he agree that if one physically has to vote at a polling station, one's presence may well be challenged? If one votes by post, it cannot. Bearing in mind that many of the people in attendance at polling stations know a great many people in their areas, the chance of fraud and deception is much less. It is much greater with all-postal voting.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Of course. That is self-evident, and my hon. Friend is right to point it out. If he turns up at a polling station and claims to be Mr. Sam Bloggs, there are many people in Macclesfield who will think that that is not quite right, whereas if he fills in something in the privacy of his home, there is no means of checking it or detecting that.
We have all, of course, heard about cases involving houses in multiple occupation, houses where the ethnic culture is not quite the same as our own, or old people's

453WH
homes. We have heard anecdotal accusations of organisation of voting: it is easy to do that. When we had talks with members of the Electoral Commission, they were rightly exercised by that aspect. I urge the Minister to take immediate steps to contact electoral registration officers about those issues.
I want to touch briefly on eligibility to go on the register; my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne spoke about that and discussed the Commonwealth nations. I was disappointed that when I wrote to the Minister on the matter, he replied:
"While I note your observations on this matter, we do not plan at this time to ask the Electoral Commission to carry out a review of eligibility for registration."
It would be appropriate to carry out a review. Reciprocity is the thing. I have no objection to the system that applies to citizens of the Republic of Ireland, or of those other nations, including South Africa, which my hon. Friend listed, where there is reciprocity. However, where there is no reciprocity, I wonder whether we should persist in automatically giving the right to vote in all elections in this country. It is a question of fairness and balance, and I am not sure that we have got it right.
I shall end where I began, following the comments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test who highlighted an important issue. If we are seriously contemplating compulsory identity cards—I am not one of those with a big hang-up on the issue—there is a real case for compulsory registration and for telling people that if they are not registered, they cannot receive benefits or do this, that or the other. People should register as a subject and citizen of the country, and all rights and duties should flow from that. I see no sensible objection to that proposition. It should be considered.
I would even say that I prefer compulsory voting to the proliferation of postal ballots. Compulsory voting does not mean having to register a vote for a Labour, Conservative, Liberal or any other candidate. It means having to turn up or fill in the postal form and vote. I am conscious that there are three wind-up speeches to come, so I shall end there. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne for what she has done, and I hope that the Minister will give us a positive and encouraging reply.
10.28 am
Mr. David Heath: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on securing the debate. It is extraordinary that the democratic process, which is the lifeblood of the House, often seems to be such a peripheral and marginal issue here. It is left to those who can be loosely described as anoraks to pore over the details of the statistics and processes. I should like to think that all our colleagues in this place understand the difficulties of the electoral process and take an active interest in it.
Like the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I have been asked on occasion to monitor elections elsewhere. As a member of the parliamentary assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, I have on occasion been asked to go to the emerging democracies in central and eastern Europe to assist in elections. Indeed, I was in Georgia not long ago to see the elections in Tbilisi.
454WH
I find it extraordinary that we often fervently preach about the benefits of strict democratic process and argue about the merits of a democratic structure in our country while retaining a partly appointed and partly hereditary House, but that is an aside. The point is that we often cannot sustain such arguments when our own arrangements are considered, because they are open to abuse.
I do not argue, by extension, that our arrangements are habitually abused to a great extent, as there is abundant evidence that that is not the case. However, it is dangerous to be complacent and to assume that we will always have a reasonably clean electoral system because that has been the case historically, or that we should not endeavour as much as we can to maximise the integrity of the system. That is what the debate is about, and that was the context of the valuable contributions of the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack).
The potential problems with our electoral system have all been dealt with, to some extent, in previous contributions. The first such problem is false registration. The point of entry, as it were, of the hon. Member for Broxbourne was the concern that it is relatively easy for one to register oneself falsely.
I can think of three reasons for doing that, the first of which is to establish a false identity for purposes outwith the electoral process, and I have no doubt that that happens. The second reason is to perpetrate electoral fraud. I do not know the extent to which that is a problem; I do not think that anyone does. The view expressed by the Minister in previous exchanges on the matter when considering legislation smacks of complacency of a high level. The fact that there have been relatively few prosecutions means not that the problem does not exist, but that it is not being detected. It is arguable that the processes by which it could be detected are so deficient that we are unlikely to have a high number of prosecutions.
However, there are occasional prosecutions. It is unfortunate that we could not refer to a case during proceedings on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill concerning a gentleman who was prosecuted for electoral fraud at an all-postal ballot election. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) will know of it, as the gentleman concerned was from his part of the country.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but I would be grateful if he confirmed that, although the case was, as he put it, in my part of the country, it was not in my constituency.
Mr. Heath: I am happy to confirm that. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman last night in the House with great interest, I know that he has enough problems in his constituency, and I do not want to add to them. I understand that the case involved an elected Conservative councillor in the Guildford constituency, who was convicted.
That case at least serves as evidence that such things do happen. They happen in all parties—this is not a party political point. There have been instances of electoral fraud in all the major parties.

455WH
I ask the Minister the question that I asked the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) when he was representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission: will the admirable code of conduct produced by the Electoral Commission be sent to every candidate in future elections? It is important that people understand what they must and must not do regarding electoral registration, so I hope that that will be the practice. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his helpful response to my question, but it also needs the imprimatur of Government to suggest that it is a necessary part of spreading the word of good practice.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Since the hon. Gentleman has referred to me, may I explain my role in speaking on behalf of the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission? That committee has quite narrow responsibilities with regard to the commission. When I answer questions once a month, I try to incorporate the views of the commission and to make it clear that they are its views. It is not part of my responsibilities to express my personal views in sittings such as this.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He discharges his duties on that matter extremely well both in the House and elsewhere.
I was saying that there are three areas of false registration—false identity, electoral fraud and, thirdly, sheer stupidity. Every year, some clown comes forward, appears in the popular press waving his electoral registration card for his dog, cat, pet budgie or three-year-old child, and says, "A stupid electoral registration officer sent me this card," not realising that it is they who are stupid for having put that name in the wrong column on the registration form. It upsets me that the press never seem to understand that simple fact. They think that such stories are just a jolly good way to bash yet again the local authority and the electoral registration officers for not knowing what they are doing, despite the fact that someone has committed an offence. The offence was probably committed not intentionally but because of an inability to understand the instructions, but it is nevertheless an offence.
The second area of concern, which I will not dwell on, is multiple registration. I have difficulties with that. I had a long argument during discussions on the Representation of the People Act 2000, because I confess that I do not understand the electoral arrangements whereby one can register in more than one place when the qualifying date is a specific time in the year when one is supposed to be in residence for one evening.
I was repeatedly assured by the then Minister with responsibility for that matter that I was wrong to have disqualified myself from registration at my London flat because I was registered in Somerset. I thought that I was interpreting the rules correctly, but I was told, "No, it is perfectly proper to register in more than one place, provided that you exercise your vote only in one place at an election." If I, as a reasonably well informed member of the public on this matter, am confused, a lot of other people must also be confused. We need to clarify what is allowed.
456WH
I think that it is rare for people deliberately to register in order to exercise their vote in a number of different constituencies, but I am sure that there are people who do that. They need to have a fast car to move from polling station to polling station, but that has been known to happen.
Non-registration is a factor in highly mobile populations, in areas where there are institutions of higher education, and in places where there are many houses in multiple occupation. It also occurs in constituencies that are ethnically diverse and have many young people. It should be of deep concern, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test said. The rolling register was supposed to help deal with that, but it has not—possibly because people do not understand that register, as it has not been sufficiently well advertised.
All-postal voting, combined with non-registration or false registration, is potentially very dangerous. E-voting will be equally problematical. In Ireland, a major IT programme has been abandoned simply because it could not be made to work, despite high expectations. The hon. Member for Broxbourne has raised some important issues. I am not convinced that the coordinated online register of electors, which I am sure the Minister is going to talk about, is the answer.
On the Commonwealth, I agree with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire that the problem is a relic of empire. People being able to say, "Civis Britannicus sum" is something that we can perhaps no longer deal with. Should we not consider the experience in Northern Ireland, where we have made advances, see what lessons can be learned for mainland Great Britain and perhaps have an electoral system with a great deal more integrity than we have potentially at the moment?
10.40 am
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Thank you, Mr. Cook. I am glad to be here under your chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the Chamber that the House, in its wisdom or otherwise, decided that occupants of this Chair, while they were sitting in it, should be addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Hawkins: I corrected myself as you were rising, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. I am glad to be here under your chairmanship.
I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on securing this important and timely debate and on what she said. On behalf of the Conservative Front-Bench team, I say that we as a party agree with the vast majority of what she set out this morning.
I was particularly struck by the extraordinary decreases in the numbers of electors in certain seats to which my hon. Friend referred. Brentford and Isleworth and Portsmouth, South—the two with the largest reductions—are both seats that I know quite well. I agree with what she said about reciprocity, which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Reciprocal rights to vote in elections in both countries are crucial. The House should perhaps investigate

457WH
reciprocity. There is now a Select Committee that shadows the work of the Minister's Department. Perhaps all hon. Members should talk to its Chairman about a future inquiry into reciprocity.
As my hon. Friends know, we have expressed concern about how the Electoral Commission, which was set up by the Government, valuable though much of its work has been, is perhaps developing a life of its own and producing a vast number of glossy brochures and so on, as so many newly created bodies tend to do. The House could valuably consider reciprocity. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne could look at it in future. Both of us might speak about that to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), Chairman of the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, and suggest that the Select Committee investigate it.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, the Minister and I are veterans of what he memorably described as the groundhog day debates on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. We went through the same arguments about six or seven times in the ping-pong before Easter between the two Houses of Parliament. In that debate, I expressed the concern—it was also the view of the Electoral Reform Society, for which I have a great deal of time, because it provides independent, objective advice to all hon. Members on matters to do with elections—that large-scale fraud in British elections was now possible for the first time in 130 years.
I was pleased that, as a result of the efforts of my noble Friends in repeatedly defeating the Government in another place, the Government were impelled in the end to make certain concessions to the Lords and to introduce some extra safeguards on the postal pilots, as they were described, although half the country will be voting by post in those so-called pilots. That was the main issue of contention. However, even the extra safeguards that we forced the Government to include in the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill do not go far enough. We are still concerned about some of the things that my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne, for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and for South Staffordshire have commented on. We will continue to raise such points in debates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said that the question of who is eligible to vote should be the priority focus before the introduction of what the Government call multi-channelled, e-enabled elections. I have made much fun of the Minister's obsession, and that of his officials, with trendy phrases such as multi-channel elections. The Government have got another thing coming if they really believe that talking about multi-channel elections will make it easier for the ordinary voter to understand elections. I do not believe that the ordinary voter has a clue what the Government mean when they talk about multi-channel elections. We must get back to traditional ways of persuading the electorate that elections and politics are important.
I have been slightly critical of the Electoral Commission and its work, but it has said some very interesting things. I received its latest brochure, "The register", in my parliamentary post this morning. It contains some quite interesting things to which I do not have time to refer in detail this morning, but I advise my
458WH
hon. Friends to read in particular the very sensible views expressed on the last page by an office manager in Copenhagen on the European parliamentary elections. I particularly agree with those views.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne rightly said that returning officers need to be given more direction on the scrutiny of the electoral register, and protected from accusations of racism and harassment. I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that electoral registration officers are busy local government officers with other duties who are often much put upon and insufficiently supported. I hope that, when the Minister responds to this short but important debate, he will make it clear that the Government strongly support electoral registration officers, who have a difficult job that, in my experience, they do as best they can in difficult circumstances and often under great pressure of time. They should be better supported in order that they may make the investigations called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) may have gone a little wrong in his extensive contribution to the debate in being so critical of the newspaper that revealed how easy it was to misregister and to commit other electoral abuse. Would the hon. Gentleman have said the same if the matter had been investigated by The Guardian, the New Statesman or The Independent, and not by the newspaper that is the hate figure for all Labour Members?
Dr. Whitehead: The answer is yes.
Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman says yes. We await his reactions if that happens. I believe that that newspaper performed a public service. It has the resources to find out how weak the system is, and the Government have been very complacent about that. Seats in parliamentary elections can be decided by tiny majorities. By my calculations, in the 2001 general election, 28 seats in this House were won by a majority of less than 1,000, including the seat of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. The lowest majorities were 33, 48, 53, 74 and 128. Those tiny majorities show how easily only a few people indulging in electoral fraud can change an election.
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right— a marginal seat such as mine is open to such abuse. However, it also produces the highest turnout because people feel that they have something worth voting for, which they do not feel in European or local elections, where decisions appear to be taken elsewhere.
Mr. Hawkins: I agree. For a moment, I thought that I could convert the hon. Gentleman or his party to returning to single Member European constituencies and restoring that constituency link.
In response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire rightly said that the chance of fraud is much greater in the case of all-postal votes. I agree with what he said about the dangers in respect of houses in multiple occupation. He urged the Minister to take urgent steps to contact electoral

459WH
registration officers. Again, I agree with his comments. He also said that there was a real case for compulsory registration. That could be looked into further, and I hope that the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs will do so.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned his experiences in Georgia and the elections in Tbilisi. He rightly said that we do not know the extent of electoral fraud. There has not been enough investigation. He also rightly said that Ministers are far too complacent because it is unlikely that fraud will be detected. A detective chief inspector of the west midlands fraud squad, Dave Churchill, said:
"The current election system is based on trust and that trust is being eroded".
Some form of identification is needed both for voters at the polling stations and for those who vote by post. The new postal voting system provides an opportunity for malpractice.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and the work that he does in the House. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome talked about press misreporting when things go wrong, and about the issue of stupidity. There may be only a few voters who deliberately vote several times in different places, but that can swing an election. This is a serious issue, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne for bringing it to hon. Members' attention. We will doubtless return to it on many occasions.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on securing this debate, which has shown that all hon. Members from all parties rightly continue to be vigilant about the need to have an accurate electoral register. We all agree on that, even though we may differ on the different techniques to achieve that. I appreciate the interest and concern that have been shown on the subject.
Voter registration is clearly fundamental to the democratic process. It is the obvious basis on which all our other electoral processes are built. We fully recognise the importance of accurate and up-to-date electoral registers. Without being on the electoral register, a person is not able to exercise his or her right to vote. We also recognise that it is crucial to have public confidence in the systems in place for voter registration, and to ensure that they are secure and that only eligible persons appear on the electoral register, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) urged.
In addressing voter registration procedures, a balance needs to be struck. It is important to make voter registration convenient and flexible to help to maximise voter registration, but we must tackle understandable worries about the registration system being open to abuse. The hon. Member for Broxbourne made that point.
It might be useful to consider briefly the eligibility criteria for registration. Under electoral law, British citizens, qualifying Commonwealth citizens and citizens
460WH
of the Republic of Ireland are eligible to register to vote in all UK elections. The term "qualifying Commonwealth citizen" was introduced in the Representation of the People Act 2000. That amended the eligibility criteria for Commonwealth citizens, as a result of which only Commonwealth citizens who have the right of abode in the UK, or who have leave to enter or to remain in the UK, are now eligible to register to vote.
The hon. Lady raised several points about reciprocity between Commonwealth countries and this country. I do not have the statistics to hand on the number of our citizens who vote in those countries, but I shall look into that matter in more detail. We have well established arrangements that operate on the basis of the good faith relationships that we have with those countries. There are no plans to change that.
Our provisions mean that persons who are here perhaps illegally are not eligible to register to vote. For example, asylum seekers, including those who are Commonwealth citizens, are not eligible to register to vote, as an asylum seeker acquires leave to remain in the UK only if his or her claim is successful. Furthermore, under the Maastricht treaty, citizens of the European Union living in the United Kingdom have been eligible and entitled to register to vote in UK European parliamentary elections since 1994, and in local elections since 1996.
It is obvious, but worth restating, that the people responsible for compiling electoral registers are the local authorities. Electoral registration officers are officers of local government and have a key role in the voter registration process. the Representation of the People Act 1983 requires local authority electoral registration officers to compile electoral registers accurately. They play a key part in ensuring that eligible people complete and return voter registration forms. They also have a key role in publicising voter registration arrangements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) made eloquently the point that, although there are concerns about the possible abuse of the registration system, to a large extent, our voter registration procedures are based on trust and good faith with the wider community. Given the volumes involved, that needs to be the case, although a number of offences guard against misinterpretations and malpractice.
I am aware of the Daily Mail article about a reporter who fraudulently registered to vote in a number of constituencies. I should explain that it is an offence for a person to register fraudulently and for a person so registered subsequently to vote in an election. The Electoral Commission has been looking into the registration process and has found that a great majority of electoral registration officers have reported no experience of fraud.
However, we do not wish to be complacent and we want to continue to be vigilant. We have given electoral registration officers a range of powers to enable them to carry out their duties. Fairly recently, regulation 23 of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 permitted an electoral registration officer to require any person to give information required for the purposes of that officer's duties in maintaining registers of parliamentary and local elections.

461WH
It is an offence, punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding £1,000, to fail to comply with a request for information from an electoral registration officer or to give false information. Prosecutions for noncompliance are initiated at local discretion. Importantly, the electoral register compiled by the electoral registration officer must be published and available for public inspection. Entries on the register can therefore be checked by political parties, by candidates and by members of the public.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister follow up my suggestion and write to all electoral registration officers?
Mr. Leslie: We are in regular contact with electoral registration officers and I personally have a lot of trust and faith in the job that they do. I do not want to suggest that I am losing confidence in their ability to do a good job. As yet, I do not see the evidence that would require me to take that step. However, we are always reviewing such matters.
I want to come to a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Broxbourne. It was suggested that some electoral registration officers have declined requests to investigate the inclusion on the register of certain persons on the basis that that could be construed as discriminatory. What steps to take to ensure that the registers are accurate is a matter for an individual registration officer's judgment.
The ethnicity of a name on an application should not in itself invalidate inclusion, but nor should it preclude an electoral registration officer, who believes that they have a just case, from making inquiries about eligibility. That electoral registration officer would be responsible for compiling as accurate a register as possible, and the integrity of the democratic process is in no small measure dependent on their doing so. It follows that such a registration officer should have discretion to make reasonable inquiries to satisfy themselves about the eligibility of applications, provided that they do so courteously and sensitively.
If Members of Parliament or candidates have evidence that the electoral register contains inaccurate entries, they should inform the relevant electoral registration officer. If MPs or candidates consider that a registration officer is failing to investigate cases of alleged misregistration, they may wish to take the matter up with the chief executive of the local council.
This has been a useful debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test raised a wider question about the relationship between the census and the smaller register of electors in some urban areas. There may be issues to do with transient, mobile populations that we can consider another time.
I believe that we have put in place strong measures. They include rolling registration, which allows a registration officer to take persons off a register at any time, rather than just on one particular day a year. The changes that we have made ensure that we have the best registration process in history, and probably one of the most accurate electoral registration processes in the world.

Asylum Centres (Independent Monitor)
11 am
Tony Baldry: In spring 2002, to the Government's great embarrassment, nightly television news showed footage of young men—asylum seekers from the Sangatte camp in France—getting to England through the channel tunnel. The asylum system was clearly out of control, and with a record 84,130 people claiming asylum in the UK, Ministers desperately needed to be seen to be doing something—anything—to get a grip on the situation. In response to the Sangatte television footage, Home Office Ministers decided that they would establish a network of accommodation centres across the country, where asylum seekers could be taken and processed.
As is so often the case, the Treasury was not wholly impressed by the Home Office's ability to spend ever more money on tackling asylum seekers. It is clear that the Treasury said that the experiment of accommodation centres could go ahead, but only if comparatively few centres were built. To restrain the costs further, the centres had to be built on land that was already owned by the Government, such as surplus Ministry of Defence land. The outcome of such financial horse-trading in Whitehall was a policy to build a small number of accommodation centres, each housing up to 750 asylum seekers for up to six months at a time.
From the outset, the policy was completely friendless. It was opposed by every organisation concerned with the welfare of refugees, from the Red Cross to the Refugee Council. Those organisations believed that the accommodation centres were the wrong size and in the wrong place. In April 2002, eight such organisations, representing a broad cross-section of concerned groups, including the Refugee Council, the British Medical Association and Save the Children, wrote a joint letter to the Home Secretary in which they made their views clear. They told the Home Secretary:
"Supporting asylum seekers in the community—rather than accommodating them in centres—should be the objective of the government's asylum accommodation policy."
Likewise, Oxfam stated that
"the size of such centres is a major concern."
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux expressed concern about the fact that
"residents will largely be confined to the centre, with … little if any ability to engage in purposeful activity off-site."
The Immigration Law Practitioners Association said:
"we are concerned about the effectiveness of private contractors running accommodation centres, and that 'commercial confidentiality' will obscure how centres are run."
The association's assessment was absolutely accurate: on the ground of commercial confidentiality, the Home Office has never been willing to give any costs for the centres.
The Home Office never managed to find a single organisation that supported its plans, but, with the help of their substantial majority, the Government did not have much difficulty driving their proposals through the House of Commons. However, as is so often the case with legislation that has not been properly thought through or scrutinised in the Commons, it was left to the other place to try to introduce some semblance of sanity

463WH
into the Government's completely friendless proposal. On two occasions, the other place voted down a proposal for large accommodation centres stuck out in remote rural locations.
Critics in the other place came from all parts of the House. The Labour peer Lord Clinton-Davis, a former EU commissioner, observed that
"Every organisation … is against the idea that rural circumstances should prevail as regards accommodation centres",
and added that
"with the depth of their experience, I believe that they are probably not wrong."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2002; Vol. 640, c. 780.]
Lord Dholakia, on behalf of the Liberals, said that there should be smaller accommodation centres. He expressed his hope that Ministers would find it possible, even at that late stage, to take into account the modest amendments that had been put forward for smaller centres, on the basis of the model that the Refugee Council had proposed. Lord Judd, who, as the Minister knows, has considerable experience with policy relating to refugees, observed:
"When so many people with so much experience and expertise in this area are saying that part of what the Government are still proposing is almost certainly going to cause problems and damage, I find it difficult to understand why the Government insist on continuing with that part of their proposals."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2002; Vol. 640, c. 774.]
The Government had a somewhat nail-biting time. The end of the Session was approaching, and if agreement could not be reached with their lordships, there was a danger of their losing the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. Literally at the last moment—like a rabbit out of a hat—the Home Secretary produced the idea of an independent monitor of accommodation centres. To quote the statute—this is, after all, a statutory provision—the independent monitor will have a statutory responsibility to assess
"the quality and effectiveness of accommodation and other facilities provided in accommodation centres … the nature and enforcement of conditions of residence … the treatment of residents, and"—
importantly—
"whether, in the case of any accommodation centre, its location prevents a need of its residents from being met."
Supposedly, therefore, we were to have an independent person with statutory authority who would have a statutory responsibility to consult organisations concerned with the welfare of refugees and asylum seekers and to consider the suitability of sites from that perspective.
The measure was brought before the House of Commons rather hurriedly one Thursday morning right at the end of the Session. Anyone with any common sense assumed that the independent monitor would be appointed reasonably shortly thereafter and would advise the Home Secretary on the suitability of locations before Ministers went ahead with building accommodation centres. It is fair to say that the Home Secretary did nothing to disabuse the House of that
464WH
view—indeed, rereading his comments that day, one can see a mastery of what was, I suspect, deliberate ambiguity and obfuscation. He said:
"We want to ensure that we have thought the matter through and have an evidence-based approach … The measure is an addition, an underpinning and a reinforcement of the process with regard to, for instance, education, on which we said that a special or specific need might have to be met in a different way. We now accept that that might be dealt with in a broader context, with the monitor offering a view."—[Official Report, 7 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 456.]
I am not quite sure what that meant, but the Home Secretary certainly gave not a scintilla of an impression that the independent monitor would not be appointed until after accommodation centres had been built.
With the introduction of the independent monitor, the Bill was passed. Only then did everyone discover that the Government, in their Alice in Wonderland world, had drafted the statute in the way that they had because they intended the independent monitor of accommodation centres to advise
"whether, in the case of any accommodation centre, its location prevents a need of its residents from being met"
only once a centre had been built. How crazy is that? The Treasury could spend millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, only for the independent monitor to advise that the location was unsuitable.
Ministers have persistently refused to give any indication of how much accommodation centres will cost the taxpayer on the grounds that the information is commercially confidential. However, one can reasonably assume that the cost will not be inconsequential, because Ministers would otherwise be more than happy to brief the press about such a cost-effective way of processing asylum applications. Two reasonable inferences can be drawn from the lunacy of the Government's policy: either the Government are perfectly happy to waste millions of pounds in nugatory expenditure, or they have absolutely no intention of heeding the independent monitor's advice. The latter would, of course, be entirely characteristic of the Government's behaviour to date in respect of accommodation centres.
Ministers went through the farce of submitting a planning application for the accommodation centre on the outskirts of Bicester and going through a public inquiry. At the Dispatch Box, the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), then the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, said in the clearest possible terms:
"The Government have made it clear that we will abide by the planning process, and by the outcome of any public inquiry. That is both fair and democratic'.—[Official Report, 5 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 152.]
Any reasonable person would have concluded from that that Ministers intended to abide by the advice of the planning inspector whom the Deputy Prime Minister appointed to conduct a public inquiry.
The inquiry duly took place and lasted from 10 December 2002 to 3 March 2003. It heard from about 30 witnesses, although the Government could not find a single witness or organisation, apart from Home Office officials, to speak on their behalf. In due course, the

465WH
inspector reported, and his conclusions were clear and unambiguous. He concluded that, on planning grounds, the development should not go ahead, saying that
"In making the overall decision it is my view that greater weight should be attached to the factors against the proposal than for it. I say this for three reasons. First, the need to create a more sustainable pattern of development lies at the very heart of the Government's well-established approach to land use planning in this country. It would, in my view, be inappropriate for the Government to make an exception in respect of its own development. Second, the necessity for, and the benefits of, the proposed Accommodation Centre being in this rural area were not, in my view, shown by the Home Office to be convincing or overriding. The proposal seems to me to be driven by the availability of some surplus Government-owned land and by an undemonstrated belief that this rural location would aid the self-containment of the Centre. Third, the risk of road accidents involving pedestrian asylum seekers and others is, in my view, a very real, practical worry that was given insufficient attention by the Home Office. My overall conclusion is, therefore, that on balance, the First Secretary of State should not give approval to the proposed development."
In other words, the first two reasons are based on policy considerations—the inspector's view being that it had not been established that the development was appropriate in a rural area—and the third on specific concerns about safety.
Did the Government heed such a clear recommendation? No! The Deputy Prime Minister metaphorically put two fingers up to the advice of the inspector, and said that—as is often the case with Government policy—they would go ahead anyway, regardless of what any public inquiry said. Recalling the words of the former Minister for Citizenship, Immigration and Community Cohesion, it is difficult to see how such steamroller tactics on the part of the Government are either "fair" or "democratic".
As the Minister will know, the matter went to the High Court by way of judicial review, and may well go to the Court of Appeal as a consequence of that review. For that reason, I will say nothing more, other than that, as it was quite clear that the Government had no intention of heeding the advice of their own independent planning inspector, one has to ask whether they will be willing to heed the advice of the independent monitor.
That takes us back to the independent monitor. The Government say that they are keen to get on with the plans, but so far no independent monitor of accommodation centres has been appointed and no advertisement for the post has appeared. It seems that the Government hope to spend millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on an accommodation centre for asylum seekers on the outskirts of Bicester. At some stage, prior to the centre receiving any asylum seekers, they will have to appoint an independent monitor. If they fail to comply with their statutory duty to do so, I assure the Minister that the Government will be taken to judicial review. They will have to give the independent monitor reasonable time in which to carry out his or her statutory responsibilities and to consult—and it will clearly be reasonable of the independent monitor to consult with those organisations that are concerned with the welfare of refugees. If the monitor is not given reasonable time to consult, the Government will be taken to judicial review.
We know from the letter of April 2002 to the Home Secretary what the organisations concerned with the welfare of refugees and asylum seekers are likely to say.
466WH
They will almost certainly repeat their previous concerns about the proposed centres being the wrong size and in the wrong place. In those circumstances, it would not be unreasonable of the independent monitor to conclude in respect of
"the quality and effectiveness of accommodation and other facilities provided"
in the accommodation centre and—again, I quote from the statute—
"whether, in the case of any accommodation centre, its location prevents a need of its residents from being met",
that Bicester is not a suitable location for an accommodation centre in relation to the welfare of asylum seekers. If that is the advice that Ministers receive, and if they ignore that advice from the individual in a post established on purpose by statute to render such advice, I tell the Minister that the Government will be taken to judicial review. That is a matter on which Ministers may well be wise to seek the advice of Treasury counsel, but I think that they would be advised that there is every possibility that the Government would lose in the High Court.
The Government's approach is altogether crazy. I cannot believe that the Treasury will be willing to allow the Government to spend millions of pounds on a project that might never happen. Surely the sensible way forward is for the Government properly to advertise for an independent monitor of accommodation centres, to recruit such a monitor, and to allow him or her to carry out their statutory remit of consulting—I quote from the statute—
"the Secretary of State, and … such other persons as he considers appropriate";
and reporting to the Secretary of State on whether an accommodation centre's
"location prevents a need of its residents from being met."
The Government should do that before they proceed with their plans for an accommodation centre at Bicester.
There can be no justification for or logic in waiting until an accommodation centre is built before asking the independent monitor to carry out his or her work, unless the Government and Treasury are willing to risk wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, or the Home Office is simply determined to ignore whatever advice it receives from the independent monitor. Home Office lawyers told the planning inquiry during cross-examination that
"Bicester will remain to have a trial accommodation centre even if the trial does not work. There would have to be an effective return on the Government's investment."
Neither approach is sustainable. The former—wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers' money—is likely to fall foul of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, and the latter is, I hope, likely to fall foul of the High Court on judicial review. My advice to the Minister, therefore, is to get on and do what both Houses of Parliament thought that that Government were going to do when Parliament passed the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum Act 2002, and appoint as soon as possible an independent monitor for accommodation centres.
11.15 am
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne): In my maiden speech in this Chamber as the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, I congratulate the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on securing the debate. I have been in the job only five weeks, but having seen how much time dealing with this issue has required in those five weeks, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. I recognise the efforts that he has made on behalf of his constituents since January 2002, when we announced our interest in a site in his constituency for an accommodation centre.
The hon. Gentleman set out, appropriately, to establish an historical perspective, with reference to the legislation that has given rise to the prospect of an accommodation centre in his constituency. I remind hon. Members first of the reasons that the Government gave, and still give, for introducing accommodation centres, but as a mark of the significant contribution made by my predecessor in this job, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), I must record the fact that the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave, although correct for the time in question, have now been significantly reduced. There are now half, or less than half, that number of asylum seekers seeking to enter the United Kingdom. We have significantly improved our ability to process applications, with 80 per cent. now being processed in two months, and we have doubled the 1997 figure for people removed after unsuccessful asylum applications.
Accommodation centres are being established to improve the asylum process and are an integral and key part of our reforms, which are already having a significant effect on the numbers, processing and removal of asylum seekers. Accommodation centres form part of a robust and well managed end-to-end asylum system of induction, accommodation, reporting and removal centres, and will provide a supportive environment for asylum seekers who are destitute. Most important, the centres are a means of improving the management of contact with asylum seekers. There will be much closer contact with asylum applicants and faster processing than is generally possible at present with dispersed applicants. That will speed up even further the decision-making process. In addition, accommodation centres will reduce pressure on local services by providing all basic services on site, including education and health care. I know that those issues have exercised the hon. Gentleman, as I have recently corresponded with him on those and related matters. The centres will also provide the opportunity for better rates of return of those who fail to obtain refugee status, as well as speed up the returns process. They will also be best placed to ensure that those who are granted refugee status—newcomers to our society—are integrated appropriately.
In the light of the ongoing appeal I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand why I am constrained in speaking about the subject of the debate, and in responding to some of the observations that he made. Indeed, he recognised a constraint on the manner in which the issues can be debated, as an appeal is under way.
Tony Baldry: There is nothing about the independent monitor in matters before the High Court or the Court of Appeal. Therefore, the Minister is in no way constrained from responding to my points about the independent monitor.
Mr. Browne: I am grateful for that advice. The hon. Gentleman and I share a legal background. However, for illustrative purposes, the hon. Gentleman's speech covered a much broader subject area than the independent monitor; he rightly set the scene and explained some other factors. As I am a Minister and there is an appeal ongoing, I cannot respond fully in respect of some of those factors, but I want to put it clearly on the record that I do not concede the points that the hon. Gentleman made.
I want to focus on the issue that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to debate, so I turn now to the subject of the monitor. The Government's position has always been clear: decisions on the location of accommodation centres will be made by the Secretary of State, subject to the planning process. We have abided by that decision since we began site searching in 2001. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, we have been equally clear that the monitor will not be involved in the selection of sites for accommodation centres. Furthermore, there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the monitor prior to establishing an accommodation centre. I hope to prove that by reference to the record of debates in this House and in the other place, where there was a more concentrated and specific discussion of this issue and in which a Minister of the Crown set out the Government's position.
The role of the monitor is clearly defined in Section 34 (2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. He or she will be required to monitor the operation of accommodation centres and
"in particular, will consider—

(a) the quality and effectiveness of accommodation and other facilities provided in accommodation centres,

(b) the nature and enforcement of conditions of residence,

(c) the treatment of residents, and

(d) whether, in the case of any accommodation centre, its location prevents a need of its residents from being met."

The hon. Gentleman concentrated his argument on the last provision. Lord Filkin made the role of the monitor clear in the final debate during the passage of the 2002 Act. On that provision he said:
"The point of the amendment is for the monitor to consider whether in the case of any accommodation centre its location prevents a need of its residents from being met. So once the centre is operating the monitor is required to consider the needs of the residents and whether the location prevents a need being met."
He went on to say:
"The essential point about sites under consideration is that it is the job of the Home Secretary, subject to the planning authorities, to decide whether or not a location is suitable. The Home Secretary's purview and consideration will clearly be wider than that of the planning authorities: the Home Secretary will have to think about whether he is acting reasonably in believing that this location is likely to meet the needs of its future residents in all respects. As noble Lords have pointed out, the monitor will subsequently be charged with the statutory duty of seeing whether that works in operation."

469WH
The hon. Member for Banbury said that that was misunderstood by everybody who took part in that debate, but it was not, It was recognised by Members in the other place, and in particular by Lord Dholakia. He said—I could not put it better—
"The amendment that we supported demonstrated clearly that it would have been possible to pay due regard to the issues of concern before the accommodation centres became operative, whereas the monitor will not be able to do so until after they have been established."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 November 2002; Vol. 640, c. 943-947.]
Therefore, it is clear that there was a debate to a conclusion and an understanding in the House of Lords.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Minister will know that I have an interest in this matter, because the only other large rural camp that is being pursued in the country is on a site in Newton in my constituency. We have had a public inquiry. The report was submitted before Christmas—I think—and we are waiting for a decision from the Deputy Prime Minister.
As the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) are discussing the suitability of locations, will the Minister repeat his predecessor's undertaking that the Government will be bound by the decisions of the planning authorities in taking any decisions on sites—which my hon. Friend and I understood to mean the advice of any inspector who sat on a public inquiry? If that is to be disregarded, what is the point of the monitor being asked to advise on the suitability of the location that is providing services, if that advice is to be given only after the centre opens? What does the Minister think will happen if, after millions have been spent on building the centre, either at Bicester or in Nottinghamshire, the independent monitor advises that the location is not suitable for the purpose?
Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention and I know of his interest—in the past he has intervened in debates about the interpretation of section 34. He knows the Government's position on the planning process, and I have no difficulty in repeating and endorsing what my predecessor has said. If he will allow me to go on, I might be able to answer his question, but I feel that my primary duty is to answer the issues raised by the hon. Member for Banbury, who secured the debate. If I run out of time, I promise that I will write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, set out the position to the hon. Member for Banbury both in written correspondence and in the House, and clarified the Government's position on a number of occasions. I remind the hon. Gentleman of an oral parliamentary question that he raised on the issue in December 2002, to which my right hon. Friend responded:
"The role of the monitor was discussed here and in the House of Lords during the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, including the implications of the late amendment on location. The hon. Gentleman has put that point before. Lord Filkin wrote to him on 15 November, making it clear that the monitor is not an adjudicator or an arbiter of whether a location would be suitable for an accommodation centre and that decisions
470WH
about where to locate the centres will be made by the Secretary of State subject to the planning process. The monitor will not be involved in selecting sites."—[Official Report, 2 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 604.]
I will reiterate what my right hon. Friend has continually explained. The monitor will consider only whether the location of an accommodation centre prevents a need of its residents from being met, and that can be assessed only once the accommodation centre is up and running. In the unlikely event that a need is not met—I think that this answers the question asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—the situation can be rectified and responded to as one would expect during the course of a trial. That is the principle purpose of a trial: to find out what responses need to be made in relation to the operation.
The creation of the post of monitor demonstrates the Government's commitment to transparency and scrutiny, and to developing an asylum support system that works. Accommodation centres will provide much closer contact with applicants and faster processing than is generally possible for dispersed applicants. Together with the integration of the redocumentation processes, that will provide the basis of better return rates for those applicants who do not qualify for refugee status.
Our position on the appointment of the monitor remains unaltered. We still intend, as Lord Filkin made clear on 7 November 2002, to have the monitor in post for a reasonable time before the opening of the first centre. That will enable him or her to begin to think about working methods and processes. We would not want someone in post so far in advance of the opening of a centre that there was nothing for him or her to do.
I would like hon. Members to note that Cherwell district council did not pursue a legal challenge on the issue of the monitor as part of the recent judicial review proceedings and that is therefore not part of the appeal. The administrative court found against the council on all seven grounds of the challenge. Mr. Justice Collins' judgment was absolutely clear on all points, and I am therefore disappointed that the council has now appealed against the decision. However, that is where we are and we will need to deal with the appeal.
Nevertheless, we have made progress on competition for the contract to build and operate the centre at Bicester and I hope to be able to announce the winning contractor shortly. I am determined to make progress with our proposals. In my view, accommodation centres can deliver significant benefits both in providing a supportive environment for asylum seekers and through faster processing, closer contact and increased rates of removal.
I thank the hon. Member for Banbury again for the opportunity to put concisely the Government's position, as I have tried to do, and to record appropriately the reminder that the Government's position has been consistent throughout the debate. I think that I have answered all the questions that he has raised, as well as those raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy
2 pm
Ross Cranston: I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mrs. Roe, because you have taken a close interest in this subject for many years. I appreciate the support of hon. Members, especially those who are members of the all-party group on alcohol misuse. I should also mention the charity Alcohol Concern, which so ably services the group, and I commend its fine work.
The Government are to be congratulated on developing the alcohol harm reduction strategy. Any criticism that I may make during the next 20 minutes or so will be a caveat to my welcome for that important document, which puts the issue on the agenda as never before. It is a great pity that the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety cannot be here, because she played an important part in bringing the strategy to fruition, and I would have liked to thank her. She has heavy responsibilities for the police and community safety—and now for security, too—but I know that she is committed to putting the strategy into effect. I hope that those other responsibilities will not detract from the task in hand.
I am pleased to see the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) here today. I know that his presence is fortuitous, because the Minister who will answer the debate has not yet arrived, but his shoulders are broad and he will, I am sure, be able to reply to many of the points that I, and others, make.
Preceding the alcohol harm reduction strategy was an extremely valuable document—the interim analytical report. Published late last year, it set out the range of important facts on which the strategy was built, the first of which is the enormous cost of alcohol-related harm. The figure put on that by the interim report is £20 billion. Of that total, £7 billion is incurred in relation to crime and social disorder—I shall return to that later—and the cost to the health service is £1.7 billion. It is important to get that £20 billion in perspective: although the Treasury raises billions of pounds in duty, that is not comparable to the cost of alcohol-related harm to the community.
The second important feature noted by the interim analytical report is that levels of alcohol consumption are rising. About 6 million people now drink more than the recommended daily guidelines. The document also identifies the serious phenomenon of binge drinking. In particular, young people drink twice as much now as they did 10 years ago. The document points out that those young people face an increased risk of accidents, and of alcohol poisoning. Men are more likely to be victims of violence, but are also more likely to commit violent offences after binge drinking. Also, especially important for women, there is the risk of sexual assault.
Mr. David Drew: I am sorry to have missed the first few words spoken by my hon. and learned Friend; I had to attend a Select Committee.
I have evidence from Victim Support showing the growing problem of people who are both perpetrators and victims of violence—a problem that needs sensitive
472WH
handling. It shows the degree to which alcohol is responsible for crime. Does my hon. and learned Friend wish to say something about that?
Ross Cranston: My hon. Friend is right. One part of the strategy document focuses on domestic violence and violence associated with alcohol. Interestingly, it makes the important point identified by research that some victims become dependent on alcohol to deal with the violence. The issue is complex, and there are no easy solutions to some of the more complicated problems of social behaviour.
Mr. Jim Cousins: May I bring my hon. and learned Friend back to the important issue of sexual assaults, which he raised before the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)? Given the busy night life of Newcastle, the police have now set up a sexual assaults referral centre in my constituency. It does not operate from police premises, and has a special team of dedicated staff. It is greatly welcomed that the police have gone about dealing with the problem in such a wise and sensitive fashion. However, does that not also illustrate that there is a serious problem to be dealt with, which imposes personal, psychological and financial burdens on the police service?
Ross Cranston: My hon. Friend is right. I commend his police service for setting up that centre. We need to roll out good practice nationwide. In certain areas there is good practice, of which my hon. Friend has given us an example. His other important point was that there are enormous social costs. In some areas, the police are finding it difficult to cope with the violence and social disorder associated with the excess consumption of alcohol, and they have had to take human resources away from other areas that need policing to deal with the problem that is especially associated with the night-time economy.
The four pillars of the strategy are education and communication, treatment, alcohol-related crime and disorder, and the duties of the drinks industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), who is a member of the all-party group on alcohol misuse, apologises for not being present today. He wants me to draw attention to what he regards as the fifth pillar, which he calls the Treasury aspects. The strategy refers to price, although it describes the relationship of supply with price as too complex to deal with by raising the price of alcohol to deter consumption. I am sure that my hon. Friend also wishes me to identify resources, and we need money to address the problem—a matter to which I shall return if I have time.
It is necessary that each of the four pillars be given equal weight. As the strategy document rightly states, if the Government are to intervene, their action must be coherent, sustained and strategic, and outcomes must be measured. It is especially important for children that the Home Office and the Department of Health should work with other Departments. For example, the Minister for Children has an important responsibility, as I shall describe in a few moments.
The strategy identifies three important factors in the first pillar of education and communication, the first of which is ignorance. The strategy uses the evidence from

473WH
the poll that was conducted last year, which showed that only 7 per cent. of men know what the Government's recommended level of alcohol consumption is. Women are slightly better: 22 per cent. of them know the safe limits. The second point is that massive sums are spent by the industry on advertising. Alcohol Concern cites the recent international rebranding of Smirnoff, which cost two and a half times the £95 million that we spend annually on treatment services. The third aspect is the culture, which is that to have a good night out one must drink to excess. Advertising creates a glamorous image associated with alcohol, and also, unfortunately, in some respects it advances the message that drinking to excess is acceptable.
Those are three factors that we must contend with in relation to education and communication. How do we do that? In a debate on the Floor of the House on 5 January this year, I set out what I thought should be done about labelling and advertising, and that can be found in column 130 of Hansard. I will not say anything more about that, but I will make two further points.
First, as revealed in a written answer on 19 April, since 1997 the Government have spent nothing on advertising the dangers of alcohol misuse. Clearly, we must do something. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who has just arrived, because she may have some thoughts on my second point about how we get the message across in schools. There have been successes in her work against drugs. How can we do the same with alcohol. There is tremendous peer pressure on young people. Obviously, there must be more training, but how do we get the message across? I welcome the strategy document's commitment to get Ofcom to review advertising. As I said in the earlier Adjournment debate to which I referred, the code provisions are far too lax and have not been properly enforced, and we need to do something about irresponsible advertising.
The second pillar is treatment. The strategy says that one in 13 people in the adult population of the United Kingdom are dependent on alcohol—3 million people. It also says that of an average of 360 hazardous and harmful drinkers who visit each general practitioner every year, seven or fewer will have their drinking addressed. Obviously, we must do something in terms of screening and identifying those with problems. One omission from the strategy is any mention of the GP contract. The way in which that is changing means that GPs will have even less incentive to identify people with drinking problems.
On treatment, I also want to highlight the issue of resources. Earlier, I gave the figure of £95 million a year, in contrast to the £1 billion spent on drug treatment. That is despite the fact that twice as many people are dependent on alcohol as on illegal and prescription drugs combined. I know that drugs are different and that they give rise to different, and in some cases more serious, problems. None the less, that disparity in resources means that something must be done. That means an increase in funds in the near future.
However, the strategy document identifies the notion of an audit; we have to audit treatment services around the country before we can do anything—but that could introduce planning blight. Those who are
474WH
commissioning treatment services for alcohol dependency will not be able to do anything while the audit is carried out over the next 12 months.
I mentioned domestic violence and treatment. Now I want to talk about children. The interim analytical report said that some 780,000 to 1.3 million children were affected by parents' alcohol problems, including violence, and the psychological problems of dealing with someone in the family who is alcohol-dependent. I know about those problems from personal experience. My grandfather was an alcoholic and my mother suffered terribly as a child, which is one of the reasons why I have taken up this subject. Specialist services must be more widely available to cater for the families of those with dependency problems. As I said, the Minister for Children has a role to play. Social services and children's centres must address the problem of alcohol misuse. The "Every Child Matters" framework must introduce the issue of concern for children in this context.
The third problem is crime and disorder, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and other hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell), take very seriously. We may talk about an urban renaissance in which people return to town and city centres to live, but they will not do so if there is violence and disorder, which may be petty and take the form of harassing people on the streets and minor criminal damage such as the destruction of bus shelters, or may be more serious and involve personal injury.
The strategy points out that there is a raft of legislation, such as penalty notices, to deal with that issue. I was pleased when my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety said last week that we must enforce those provisions. She has promised a blitz during the summer on alcohol-related violence, which I welcome. However, we have not done enough. Since 1997, only 12 landlords a year have been prosecuted for allowing drunken or riotous behaviour on their premises. The strategy identifies a code of good practice, and mentions the need for the code to ensure that soft drinks and water are readily available on retail premises. It also identifies the need for a local fund that could, for example, support police and community support officers, which I very much welcome.
Last week, the British Beer and Pub Association said that it wanted action to be taken against publicans who extend happy hours and promote binge drinking. I welcome that, too. We need to do something about binge drinking if we are to tackle the problem of crime and disorder, but we must also be more creative in the design of premises. Modern premises are not like the old-fashioned pubs to which one goes for a quiet drink; they are often designed with a view to encouraging the rapid and sometimes excessive consumption of alcohol.
Fourthly, the industry has a social responsibility. The strategy says that the industry must become more socially responsible, which I welcome. The Portman Group, for example, is supported by the industry and already does a great deal of good work. I have been critical in some respects of its enforcement of its code, but it does do good work and provides very useful information. However, we must acknowledge the fact that the drinks industry is a multinational operation

475WH
that makes enormous profits. It must recognise and acknowledge its responsibility for the way in which alcohol is sold down the chain, and it must have a responsible attitude in developing new products. Alcohol has recently been sold in jellies in test tubes. Such gimmicks are, frankly, unacceptable.
We will need statutory underpinning if the industry does not meet its social responsibilities quickly. I welcome what the strategy says about a charter of social responsibility, and the welcome idea that the industry must make some financial contribution. The strategy advances the idea of a central fund to collect about £25 million a year, which is to be welcomed. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tell us more about how plans to introduce that fund are going?
I welcome the strategy, although I am a little confused by some of the phraseology, such as "light-touch" central arrangements. I also welcome the notion that we have to monitor progress and identify indicators to track the progress of the implementation of the strategy. Will the Under-Secretary tell us to which Cabinet Sub-Committee my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) will report? The strategy is a welcome document, but the harm associated with alcohol abuse will be properly addressed only when it is implemented in full.
2.21 pm
Mr. Colin Breed: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) on securing this timely debate. I, too, welcome the Government's decision to bring the strategy forward, although they have done so somewhat later than some of us might have hoped or expected. Nevertheless, it is welcome.
Many people probably consider my constituency to be a nice, sleepy area that a lot of people visit for its beauty. We usually welcome a growth industry, but the growth of this particular industry in my constituency has had significant effects on more people than most of us realise.
There has been a growth in the number of licensed premises. People can obtain alcoholic drink at both on and off-licence premises. A greater number of premises are applying for the opportunity to sell alcoholic drink. The way in which premises sell such drinks has changed. Not so long ago, supermarkets kept their alcoholic drink behind a separate counter, but one can now simply pick up such drinks and wander to the checkout.
Over recent years, there have been several erosions in controls over the way in which alcohol can be sold. Unsurprisingly, that has led to a huge growth in the number of people drinking and the amount that they drink. It has also led to a change in the age at which they start drinking. I refuse to believe that the availability of alcohol, the proliferation of premises and the way in which alcohol is sold have nothing to do with that.
Most of us are concerned by the amount of drink that young men and, increasingly, young women consume, and the fact that they are starting to drink at younger and younger ages. I regret that, last summer, on far too
476WH
many occasions, children as young as 10 or 11 were picked up by local police and taken to the station, from where their parents were asked to come to collect them. The children did not, of course, purchase the drink themselves. Their brothers, their friends' brothers or others who they knew were old enough—or at least appeared to be old enough—bought it. They then consumed it in the local park or on the streets.
It is no secret that there has been a huge increase in alcohol-related crime and disorder. That results in more police time being taken up. Many hon. Members will have been out with their local police on a Friday or Saturday night. The scenes in large cities at such times are replicated in relatively small rural towns.
There has been a growth in street violence. That violence is against not only the person but property. Several shops in towns in my constituency can no longer get insurance for their windows. I suppose that some might consider it to be very funny and a great prank for people to be pushed on to large plate glass windows, but the windows have to be replaced as soon as a big crack appears in them and they are not cheap. In one of the holiday resorts in my constituency, there is a Chinese restaurant that has to maintain a curved window because it is in a conservation area. The window is listed, it is wonderful, but it regularly has to be replaced at phenomenal cost.
Injuries also occur I expect that many hon. Members have visited their local accident and emergency departments and have seen people being brought in to have glass removed from their person, or to have other injuries treated that are the result of having been in a fight. That is a big problem in holiday resort areas. Some of the worst excesses occur not only in Ibiza but in seaside towns in Cornwall and other places. I am sometimes pleased that I do not represent Newquay, because it has suffered considerably from the consequences of excess alcohol use.
These are important issues. I am particularly pleased to take part in this debate because I cannot think of a subject that has arisen more often in surgeries and meetings with constituents over the past year or so than the antisocial behaviour, mainly of drunken youths, in our towns. That is caused by two things—availability of alcohol and its price Increasing availability at a lower and lower price will only encourage more consumption. It is impossible to get away from that fact. Whatever we may like to believe from all the reports and statistics, greater availability at a more affordable price will lead to increased consumption. Therefore, although I appreciate and support many of the report's recommendations, I think that we should pause a little and consider our current regulations for licensed premises and our current taxation system on alcohol.
When I travel around my constituency. I often think that we have got to the point where we do not need any more licensed premises. We need more that are more responsible in how they sell alcohol, but I am yet to be persuaded that we need more licensed premises. Therefore, when there are applications for new licensed premises, it is important to think about whether they are really needed.
When I was a local councillor some years ago, I was very proud of my council when, for the first time, it took a stand and decided to object to another off-licence

477WH
because there were already enough by far in the town and it would be close to the local youth club. We were supported by numerous organisations, including the youth department of the county council. I stayed all day to attempt to put across our case, but it was clear that there was no chance of sustaining our objection, and the off-licence was granted permission. We ought to consider more closely what we need, and each and every new application must demonstrate that there is a need.
Those who enjoy the opportunity of a licence to sell alcoholic drink should be made more responsible. I have already referred to the situation in holiday resorts. I fully recognise that many pubs and clubs derive significant income from the holiday season trade, but that puts greater responsibility on them.
In the fairly recent past, we saw a great petition to close down a burger and pizza bar because there were always fights outside it. The fights had nothing to do with buying pizzas and the like. People were fuelled by alcohol from pubs in town and decided to have their fights not outside the pubs but outside that particular eatery. The outlet was obviously open, but I am not certain that it was responsible for what went on outside. The responsibility lay primarily with those who were intoxicated and, perhaps more so, with those who sold the alcohol.
We ought to consider a penalty points system on licences, so that people begin to value what they have and recognise that to hold such a licence is a responsibility. if certain pubs are seen as places where people regularly over-indulge, and we are subjected to the sort of behaviour that we see, there should be a warning system. Such places should contribute more to the local pot to fund the police time that is taken up because of irresponsible drinking by what I accept are relatively few people. Their behaviour has enormous implications, in particular for police budgets and time.
Finally, the price of alcohol has come down relative to everything else. It is far cheaper than it used to be. If we believe that we should put additional tax on tobacco because of its health implications, drinking clearly has health implications and assistance is needed in that regard, too. There is a very good alcohol and drug rehabilitation centre, Broadreach house, in Plymouth adjacent to my constituency. which has done a superb job, but it is living almost hand to mouth trying to secure money from local authorities, individuals and appeals. I am sure that there are similar places up and down the country that are in need of relatively modest sums of money. Bearing in mind the totality of the drink trade, they should be assisted in rehabilitating those who have become alcohol-dependent.
Taxation is a way forward. I am not advocating draconian increases, but many would not object to modest increases in the taxation of alcohol to fund the services that I have outlined. As the Government examine their alcohol strategy, I hope that they will consider the problem more widely and deeply, as it has become a much greater problem than when they began considering the strategy five or six years ago.
2.34 pm
Mr. Jim Cousins: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston)—not for
478WH
Dundee, North, as I thought I heard someone say. No disrespect to Dundee, but I think the views of Dundee might be different from those of Dudley. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on bringing this matter to our attention. It is an extremely important topic, and it is important that we strike a balance in our judgments and views. There can be no doubt that the growth of the leisure industry and the leisure economy—certainly in a city such as Newcastle—has brought huge benefits both to the city and to most of the people who live in it.
We are talking about problems of excess, discipline and management. Such problems are, of course, the most intractable and the hardest to solve. I was looking at some figures for my constituency, which reminded me of the growth of employment in service industries. My inner-city constituency is in the top 25 constituencies for having reduced unemployment over the past 12 months. That is a huge achievement, and the growth of the leisure industry, although it has not played a major role, has played some part in that. We should acknowledge that and see what contribution the leisure industry can make to regeneration.
Unfortunately, such developments can go too far. A balance must be struck. Many of the licensing and planning regulations are clumsy, obsolete and out of date. They do not give us the basis for the modern methods of control that we should be looking for. Under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, the famous class A3 covers bars, licensed premises and restaurants. That means that it is perfectly possible to convert a small café in which there was some licensed drinking into a vast drinking area, without applying for a change of use.
Only this week, I learnt of a case in my own constituency, on Newcastle's quayside. The premises concerned were used as a health club and swimming pool, which were of huge benefit to people in the area— all sorts of people, from the council estates behind the quayside as well as from the yuppie flats on the quayside frontage. The proposal is to convert that health club and swimming pool into a casino with a bar that will be open until 2 o'clock in the morning. There will be no change of use, because bars, casinos, health clubs and gyms are all in the same use class. In such a situation, one of the obvious methods by which people can control and contribute to the effective management of their community is denied them. I urge that we look at the use classes order to see how we can manage things better.
Another issue is the historical separation of the apparatus for licensing from the local authority planning system. The Government's proposals in the Licensing Act 2003, which will shortly be put into effect, will go some way towards bringing a cohesive approach to consideration of the issues. That is to be welcomed. However, at the moment vast numbers of licence applications are being bunged through before the Licensing Act is put into effect, and that is unsettling for people. Restaurants are being converted into bars and then into nightclubs; pubs, which had a capacity of perhaps 60 people seated and standing, are being converted into vast drinking premises with an agreed capacity of 800 or 900 people. The focus of our attention should not only be the number of licences, although that may be an issue, but the change in the nature of licensed premises.

479WH
I pay tribute to Chris Record and his liver health team in our local hospital in Newcastle, who have mobilised British hepatologists and gastroenterologists into making representations to the Government for a clear labelling system. What is missing from the alcohol harm reduction strategy is the enforcement of proper labelling. There is widespread belief that a glass of wine or beer equals one unit. However, drinks are being transformed into higher voltage liquids; a modern American or Australian wine has a greater alcohol content than a 1970s liebfraumilch.
People do not realise that the alcohol by volume content of what they drink has doubled over the past 20 or 30 years. Whereas a glass was one unit in the 1970s, now it is 1.8 or 1.9 units. Some supermarkets are beginning to use their own brand labelling to bring the matter to people's attention. However, it should be a requirement; people must understand that the content of their drinks has changed. Then they could use self-discipline, because self-management is the most effective type of management.
We should not overlook the consequences for health, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North rightly drew attention. There is a huge collateral effect on health from what might be called drink-related activities: 70 per cent. of people attending the major walk-in centre that the Government have provided in the west of my constituency are there because of drink-related problems such as fights, falling down and motor accidents, and I have already mentioned sexual assaults. We need to invest even more in such health services.
Let me bring to the Minister's attention some specific problems. I have here the draft guidance under the Licensing Act 2003. There is not time to go through all the difficulties found in such a substantial document. However, it has one central defect: it does not show forcefully enough the link between activities that occur in licensed premises and those that occur on the street outside.
As a result of the local legislation that I had the privilege of guiding through this House, we have a doormen's—or rather, doorpersons'—licensing scheme, and national legislation is to follow. The consequence is that much of the disorder is pushed off the premises into the street, where it becomes the responsibility of the police. There has been an enormous increase in the demands on our local police service as a result of growth in the leisure industry, but that is not recognised in grant allocation schemes. We urgently need a mechanism—perhaps a district leisure scheme—through which responsible licensees and owners of hotels, nightclubs and bars can contribute to the extra costs of policing and the use of street wardens. It is Government policy to introduce such wardens, but we are left with the question of how they are to be funded.
We need clear national guidance on the management of happy hours and the discounted drinks that go with them, together with a national proof-of-age scheme that does not rely on local initiatives, welcome though they are. We also need to consider how we can regulate the security industry that is now growing up around the new leisure industries.
480WH
Huge social changes are going on, and many of them are positive, but we require much clearer regulation and management, to enable local people to play their part in the management of their communities, and to deal with the relevant issues. We look to the alcohol harm reduction strategy, which is presently rather permissive, to introduce the specific regulations required to bring the problem under proper management and contribute properly to the life of communities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that I shall call for the wind-up speeches at 3 o'clock.
2.46 pm
Ms Christine Russell: I, too, congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) on securing an important debate. Although she is not here, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety for her huge commitment to tackling the problem of antisocial behaviour, drunkenness and disorderliness in town and city centres and the contribution that she has made to that effort in the past few years.
I shall focus on the vision of an urban renaissance. It is central to the Government's policy. The more people who live in town and city centres, the more attractive and vital those town and city centres will become. We are all being somewhat parochial this afternoon, and I want to cite my constituency, the historic City of Chester, where we are building more than 95 per cent. of all new residential development on brownfield sites in the city centre. However, as other hon. Members have said, if the urban renaissance is to succeed, we need a balance so that those who have moved back into the town and city centres can get a good night's sleep, while it remains possible for others to come in and get a good night out.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I, too, should like an urban renaissance, and I shall be parochial as well: renewing urban centres will prevent the building of more houses in the green belt in my constituency.
Ms Russell: If the hon. Lady studies the planning policies of Chester city council, she will see the way ahead.
Last year, I had the privilege of chairing the inquiry into the evening economy by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee. That inquiry took a great deal of evidence—from local authorities, Alcohol Concern and the police. We considered how we would bring about the vision of an urban renaissance and encourage people back into town and city centres, without the awful antisocial behaviour that tends to be associated with late-night drinking and clubbing.
It became apparent early in our inquiry that we must decide—and local authorities have a clear responsibility to decide—between encouraging a vibrant evening economy or a late-night economy. Our conclusions were

481WH
that an evening economy can be an enormously valuable regeneration tool. Plugging the gap between 5 o'clock and 9 o'clock, by encouraging shops and libraries to stay open later, will lead to a more diverse range of activities, attracting many more people to town and city centres.
The late-night economy, as it has developed in Britain, however, has focused solely on young people and alcohol consumption, with all the associated problems for communities of crime and disorder, antisocial behaviour, noise and nuisance, contributing little—and perhaps acting as a deterrent—to urban regeneration.
I am sure that most hon. Members present this afternoon agree with me that it is only those who profit from the alcohol trade who deny that Britain has a drink problem. Reading the strategy, it is quite frightening to discover that two out of five Britons between the ages of 18 and 24 are classified as binge drinkers, which means that they down more than eight units of alcohol a night if they are a man and six if they are a woman.
I do not want to go over the NHS statistics or the pressures that alcohol misuse places on our health service, because other hon. Members have already done so. Instead, I want to describe how alcohol misuse uses up a phenomenal amount of police time and resources.
Like the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), I have been out late at night with my local police force. Today, I asked the force for the statistics for my area—the division of Chester and Ellesmere Port, not the whole county of Cheshire. In my division, there have been 394 recorded incidents of alcohol-related crime in the past 12 months, including 220 assaults and woundings. Alcohol-related crime is the main factor behind the increase in violent crime statistics in many parts of the country.
During its inquiry, the Select Committee examined international comparisons. It is true that Italians, for instance, consume as much alcohol as we do, but they spread it out over the day and throughout the week, rather than concentrating it all in a few hours on a Friday or Saturday night. Alcohol consumption is increasing only in Britain, of all the European Union countries; in most of the others, it is decreasing.
While I am on the theme of Italian drinkers, I shall mention something that I noted down on the assumption that I would be seeing my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety. Last summer, when the European champions league final was held at Old Trafford, 40,000-plus Italian football fans were out celebrating on the streets of Manchester, but there was not one arrest or incident of disorderly behaviour. That is remarkable. Imagine what would have happened if Manchester United or Manchester City had been playing in Rome that evening.
The strategy endorses everything that the Select Committee said in its recommendations. One key point, which is reflected in the strategy, is that partnership working is the way forward. The police, health services, schools and colleges, local authorities, local communities and, very importantly, the drinks industry must all work together to combat the problems of binge drinking and antisocial behaviour.
The Select Committee identified the importance of local authorities devoting as much attention to what goes on in their towns and cities in the evening as they
482WH
do in the day. My local authority of Chester prepares a night-time strategy, and I would recommend every local authority to do so. One of its key objectives is to work with young people to make the city centre safer for them at night. We are considering working with club venue operators to explore the development of a city centre evening dance venue that does not sell alcohol. We are also considering improving the education programmes on offer because, as has been said, education, too, will play a key role in changing the drinking culture. I welcome the strategy; it is a big step in the right direction. However, I accept that there may be need for further action.
The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall questioned the need for more licensed premises. Under the new licensing regime, that will be an issue that local authorities will have to address; but when we conducted our inquiry and looked into the number of licensed premises and new permissions given, we discovered that in Paris not one additional drinks licence has been granted since 1915.
2.55 pm
Mrs. Janet Dean: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) on securing this important debate.
I represent a brewing constituency, and hon. Members might like to know that Coors—the largest brewery in the UK—Marston's, Burton Bridge and three other micro breweries, as well as major pub companies, are in my constituency. I warmly welcome the strategy, which is thorough, well researched and recognises the complexities of the issues. The drinks industry welcomes the clear strategic lead on how to target its corporate and social responsibility plans and efforts.
I am pleased that the strategy recognises that there are economic and social benefits to drinking, as well as harm arising from alcohol misuse. We must remember that most people enjoy having a drink without causing harm to themselves or others, and so it is encouraging that the strategy adopts a targeted approach against harmful drinking behaviours. Such a targeted approach is far more likely to succeed than blanket activity aimed at reducing overall consumption of alcohol.
We need to address patterns of drinking; that is important in targeting those at risk from alcohol misuse. In particular, we must address the trend of binge drinking, as hon. Members have said. I will not echo what has been said about the problem, but we all know that the results of binge drinking can be seen in our small and large towns and cities, and in our local communities.
There is evidence to show that strategies that address specific issues of consumption can have a good track record. For instance, although drink-drive fatalities have been dramatically reduced, the overall level of consumption has not gone down, because people who understood that they might be at risk responded positively to targeted, regular and well communicated messages about their behaviour.
I am pleased that the Government recognise that the key to success is partnership with producers and retailers, who understand the sector, are keen to help, and have already done a great deal. My hon. and learned

483WH
Friend mentioned the Portman Group and the British Beer and Pub Association, which have been producing guidelines on responsible promotions in pubs and clubs.
The strategy makes it clear that the key to success is providing better consumer information about responsible drinking and finding ways of motivating consumers to apply that knowledge to day-to-day behaviours. Tapping into manufacturing and retail companies' consumer expertise is therefore an essential next step.
My hon. and learned Friend mentioned advertising. Coors has produced alcohol responsibility adverts in conjunction with the Scottish Executive, and they ran on Scottish television in the run-up to last Christmas. Also, evaluation showed that the combination of the involvement of the managers of the old firm—Celtic and Rangers—and the Carling brand resulted in adverts that not only were noticed but had credibility. Most of the consumers who responded to an evaluation survey said that they would be more likely to drink responsibly as a result.
In my constituency, there is a good example of a brewer working with the community. Coors has leased one of its properties to the Burton addiction centre at half the commercial rent for a 20-year lease. The addiction centre provides help in Burton and the surrounding area for people with problems with alcohol and drugs. The overall help and saving for the addiction centre resulting from the strategy will be several hundred thousand pounds. That example shows that partnership between the public and private sector can pay dividends.
The strategy is a real opportunity for all stakeholders to join in making inroads into alcohol misuse. I would like increased efforts to be made by manufacturers, and would also like large supermarkets and local off-licences to become more involved in promoting responsible alcohol consumption. There has been a huge change in drinking habits in this country, and that has resulted in the situation that now exists. In 1980, for instance, 11 per cent. of alcohol sold was sold in shops; in 2003, the figure was 39 per cent., and that share is growing. Perhaps this is a real opportunity for some of the supermarkets to join the Portman Group, which has done much to promote responsibility in relation to alcohol.
If the supermarkets were now to bring their scale and expertise to bear on the Portman Group's activities, that would be excellent timing. There could be a code of practice to ensure responsible marketing in the off trade, to match the new promotions guidelines already in place in pubs and in the on trade. I welcome the strategy, and I hope that the drinks and retail sectors can meet the strategic challenges that have been laid down.
3 pm
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) on securing the debate and on his chairmanship of the all-party group. It has been a thoroughly worthwhile and well informed debate.
I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) to her place, but a Department of
484WH
Health Minister could just as easily have been sitting there, or a Minister from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who could deal with the licensing aspects of the issue. Equally, a Minister from the Department for Transport could deal with the drink-driving aspects, and a Treasury Minister could deal with the taxation of alcohol.
I had not thought of this until the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) mentioned it, but a Minister from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister could be here, too, to talk about change of use of premises. We so often see our banks turned into wine bars: would it not be nice occasionally to see a wine bar turned into a bank in one of our local communities? Perhaps that would be a step in the right direction.
This subject crosses all departmental boundaries; that is why it is so important. Obviously, the Home Office has a view on issues to do with crime, particularly violent crime. The increases in alcohol-related violent crime across the country are very serious, and we need to take notice of them. We particularly need to take notice of the domestic violence component of violent crime, which is so often alcohol-related, and is of great concern to many of us.
Antisocial behaviour often accompanies excessive drinking, particularly in our town centres. I agree with hon. Members who say that it is time to reclaim our town centres as civilised places to be of an evening, rather than places to get tanked up and have a fight. This issue involves road safety aspects: too many accidents still involve alcohol consumption at some point in their genesis, because of the impairment of driving skills that alcohol inevitably brings.
There are economic consequences, too. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) talked about the cost of vandalism, but there are all sorts of other costs, such as opportunity costs for directly affected businesses, and the cost of the fact that people who have indulged in excess alcohol may not be fit for work the next day. That has knock-on consequences, even if such people do not have an immediate health problem.
That brings me to the health issues. More than 6,000 deaths a year are directly attributable to, and probably 40,000 a year are indirectly associated with, alcohol abuse. Young people are imbibing too much alcohol at an increasingly young age. We need to address the societal change of increasing alcohol consumption by women, too. Nine children a day are admitted to hospital with drink-related medical conditions. Even if one discounts the serious health problems associated with alcohol—cirrhosis and other serious diseases—those who drink more than 100 drinks a month will still suffer low-level health degradation, such as memory loss, reduced intelligence, poor balance and impaired mental agility. Those are serious concerns that we need to address.
I have my criticisms of the strategy, but I greatly welcome the fact that it has been published at last. I certainly have serious criticisms of the Government's performance on this subject until now. They have been lethargic: the creation of this strategy was announced in 1998, and it is simply not good enough to see it emerge six years later. Bearing in mind the fact that 40,000

485WH
people a year are killed, indirectly or directly, by alcohol, some 240,000 people have died in the time that it has taken to bring forward a strategy to reduce drinking.
The Government have often been complacent. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) recently asked the Department of Health how much it had spent on advertising the dangers of alcohol since 1997 and received the answer: not a penny. Why is alcohol not treated with the same seriousness as other drugs that are abused? I do not understand that. It does not make sense, in terms of public health or of reducing criminal behaviour. The Government have been guilty of confusion. In virtually the same week as the alcohol harm reduction strategy appears, we have the liberalising changes in the licensing laws.
Let us consider the infamous text message sent out before the previous election. It would be almost impossible to render in the Official Report in the form in which it was texted, so I shall paraphrase it in English rather than text language: "Couldn't give a XXXX for last orders? Vote Labour on Thursday for extra time." Many hon. Members will look back on that as a strategic mistake. It gives a mixed message to the people whom the Government are trying to influence.
Mr. John Groganrose—
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman has been patient, and has not managed to speak in the debate, so I will give way to him.
Mr. Grogan: I was far too old to get that text message—but is it not true that reforming the licensing laws is beneficial in terms of some of the discussions that we are having today? There will be less pressure for people to drink far too much in the last half hour before closing time, when everyone is spilling out on to the streets at the same time looking for taxis and fast food. Some 50 per cent. of all alcohol-related violent crime occurs just after closing time, so there are potential benefits.
Mr. Heath: I accept that the avoidance of drinking-up time, which is often associated with excessive consumption, is a benefit. However, the text message expresses that benefit as extra time for drinking excessively. That is not the message that a responsible party, particularly a party in government, should be sending to young drinkers. Although I accept that there are arguments about the reform of the licensing laws, I do not accept that the Government have got it entirely right.
I am critical of the emphasis that was put on the launch of that campaign, because it coincided with an increase in the number of violent crimes associated with alcohol. The whole emphasis should be on reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. All of us want to see those things reduced, but we must recognise that they are the symptoms, not the cause The cause has been correctly identified by every hon. Member who has spoken in this debate: it is the culture of binge and excessive drinking—not social drinking, but drinking to get drunk.
The problem involves many young people. It is the culture of the happy hour and the alcopop—a drink that disguises the taste of alcohol to maximise alcohol intake.
486WH
Incidentally, if my knowledge of physiology is still current, many of those diluted fizzy alcoholic drinks are more easily assimilated into the bloodstream than even a straight vodka, because of the physiological way in which the alcohol is taken into the bloodstream.
We should consider how many factories for alcohol consumption there are—that is the only way to describe some of the stand-up bars with huge capacities. This drinking culture is current in all our towns and cities, including small towns and even some villages. We contrive to export it to other countries, to our eternal shame. It is appalling that we are concerned about people coming here from the European Union accession countries, because they are more worried about British people going to their town centres and behaving appallingly in Prague or Tallin, or any of the other beautiful cities that we, I am afraid, besmirch far too often with our exported bad behaviour.
The Government are at last recognising the issues. Although, as I believe the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central said, some elements of the strategy are couched in permissive terms, they nevertheless move in the right direction. However, the strategy will not be effective in reducing excessive alcohol consumption, which has become a cultural norm that we can do without, until the approach to the subject is more focused and the enforcement is better and more effective.
3.10 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I, too, congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) on securing the debate, and on sharing with us his personal circumstances and the reason for his interest in this subject—a very worthy motive for becoming involved in an issue. I hope that the mark that he makes in this area will also have significance for his family.
I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) to the debate; I gather that she was late because of the public transport system. If my memory serves me correctly, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell) and I all once travelled together in an alcohol-free zone in the middle east, so our discussions on alcohol go back a long way—although perhaps not in the terms in which this debate is couched.
There can be no one in the Chamber, whether a Member of Parliament or otherwise, who is unfamiliar with the issues surrounding drinking and antisocial behaviour. To be parochial for a moment, I can tell hon. Members that we have those problems in Chesham and Amersham. They are reflected in my postbag and in the concerns of citizens who sometimes feel that they cannot even walk safely down the street. Late at night in Old Amersham, I have found myself in a similar position, so I sympathise deeply not only with my constituents but with the Government in trying to tackle this problem in our communities.
Like other Members who have spoken in this debate, I, too, welcomed the alcohol harm reduction strategy, particularly when it finally arrived. I believe that it was the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) who alluded to the long gestation period of that

487WH
strategy. Certainly, organisations that brief us on the subject were expecting it much earlier. It seemed to take an awfully long time to be produced—and it is fair to say that there was more than a little disappointment that, after taking so long to be produced, it had less substance than many commentators had expected.
After reviewing the strategy, Professor Ian Gilmore of the Royal College of Physicians said:
"It is stronger on cleaning up the streets than on preventing physical harm."
So we know that it is not a perfect document. That is not surprising, however, as before we even consider the strategy, we have to say that there still seems to be enormous confusion over who is in charge of policies on alcohol, and an inherent contradiction in the Government's actions. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out that the responsibility for policy is spread across, I believe, up to 10 Departments—but I believe that he missed out the Department of Trade and Industry.
Mr. Heath: Quite right.
Mrs. Gillan: I was ticking them off on my list.
The competing interests of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Health, the Home Office, the Treasury, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and all the rest have resulted in what is perceived to be a piecemeal approach to alcohol policy. In the words of Alcohol Concern. which has briefed us all on the strategy,
"The competing interests of these departments have resulted in a piecemeal approach to alcohol policy and contributed to the failure to produce effective responses to the high level of alcohol-related harm in the UK."
I would be grateful if the Minister could start by helping us to understand the thinking in that respect. Who will have overall responsibility for the national and local partnerships to which Baroness Scotland referred the other day in another place? Will it be the Home Office, which wants sterner measures, the DCMS, which has loosened the licensing laws, or the Department of Health, which reckons that alcohol abuse costs it more than £20 billion a year in lost earnings and health care? Perhaps the Minister could start by clarifying the position that Baroness Scotland failed to address in the other place, and answer the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North about which Cabinet Sub-Committee will have overall responsibility for the strategy.
The Government were right to identify alcohol-related violence as a major problem. Indeed, the Home Office research has confirmed that alcohol is behind nearly half of all violent crime and about 70 per cent. of accident and emergency admissions at night and at the weekend. However, many of the conclusions in the strategy merely urge police and local authorities to use their existing powers more frequently. Measures such as the greater use of fixed penalty fines for antisocial behaviour and better enforcement of the rules on underage drinking were seen as repetition, rather than as any new innovative thinking in the area.
488WH
The Government seem to be a bit short of innovation and their own leaked documents revealed a possible reason for that in The Sunday Times on 14 March. I hope that the Minister will be able to help us to understand those reports. Apparently, the research commissioned by the Home Secretary showed that there had been a sharp rise in violent assaults linked to alcohol, and a significant increase in drunk people attacking strangers. Those increases were so high that senior Home Office officials were reported as reaching the conclusion
"that it is 'more or less impossible' for the police to enforce the law in city centres",
and that in the cities the Government have
"lost control of drink-fuelled crime".
To combat that, The Sunday Times reported, the Home Secretary apparently wants to
"Take powers to fix the prices of alcoholic drinks in city centres to help curb excessive drinking, even though it will break competition law.
Impose a compulsory annual levy on pubs and clubs of an average £10,000 a year each to pay for up to 30,000 extra police officers.
Tell councils to refuse all new licences to premises unless the applicants can prove that they will not increase antisocial behaviour."
However, as The Sunday Times said, none of those "draconian measures", or the details of the internal assessment, were spelt out at the launch of the alcohol strategy because the Treasury, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Prime Minister have blocked the Home Secretary's proposals from taking effect before the election because they fear that they
"will be seen as anti-business."
Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to deny or confirm the advice that has been given to the Home Secretary and to state the real agenda of the Home Office, rather than camouflaging everything behind the series of voluntary measures aimed at disguising the Home Secretary's long-term compulsory crackdown. I hope that the Minister will be able to share the Government's thinking on what appears to be the accurate information that was reproduced in The Sunday Times.
Perhaps the Minister will also take this opportunity to acknowledge that the alcohol strategy is an admission that the Government's measures to cut crime and antisocial behaviour have failed to date. Violent crime is up by 14 per cent., and according to Home Office officials a significant proportion of it takes place close to licensed premises. The Licensing Act 2003 and the antisocial behaviour legislation seem to have been enacted before the research and advice of the Home Office had been studied. It is all very confusing, and I have great sympathy for the Minister, who appears to be coping with her Government's inefficiencies in trying to put the strategy in place.
There is not much time in this debate to cover anything in depth, although I particularly wanted to probe the Minister on the treatment for alcohol addiction among prisoners, in which I take a great deal of interest. In the time that I have left, I shall ask what her plans are for helping with alcohol treatment in our prisons. I believe that in 2002–03, only 6,400 prisoners undertook alcohol detoxification programmes, and that

489WH
7,000 more prisoners did a combined alcohol and drug detoxification programme. However, it is estimated that 50,000 prisoners—nearly two thirds of the prison population—have admitted to hazardous drinking prior to imprisonment, and about half of those have severe alcohol dependency.
I believe that there are no specific ring-fenced accredited alcohol treatment programmes in prisons in England and Wales, and that the Prison Service survey recently identified only one prison with a dedicated alcohol strategy. If we are even to begin to approach solutions to the problems caused by alcohol misuse in this country, we need to start by examining that sector of the population, which suffers from significantly higher rates of alcohol misuse and dependence than the general population. Those people are in our prisons.
I share the Minister's view, and that of every hon. Member in the Chamber, that we need solutions. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us more detail and reassure us both that there will be regular reports on her progress, and that the proposal is not a half-hearted measure put out in advance of the more draconian measures that would be implemented should Labour goodness preserve us—win the next general election.
3.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): I apologise for being late: I understand that a state visit is taking place, which prevented my driver from picking me up on time from the station. I hasten to add that I travelled down from Leeds by train on a very good service.
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) on securing this debate. I was in Dudley a fortnight ago, where I sat in on a presentation by Aquarius, which is an alcohol arrest referral project in the area. The group works with the police and those in the health service who are involved in treatment, to address problems to do with alcohol and crime. I was impressed by the work that Aquarius was doing.
As my hon. and learned Friend is aware, I am the Minister responsible for the overall drugs strategy. We already have drug and alcohol action teams in a number of areas, and it is our desire to see more of those. Importantly, we have also actively encouraged drug action teams and drug and alcohol action teams to merge with crime and disorder reduction partnerships, so that the problem can be faced in a more joined-up way than it may have been in the past. That is an ongoing piece of work, to look at what has been going on in communities and see how much progress they have made towards that end.
As the drugs Minister, I was obviously involved with the alcohol harm reduction strategy report. We have to consider some of the issues together. That reminds me of a visit that I made to a treatment service, where I met a gentleman who said, "I'm off crack, but I'm still an alcoholic." There are different uses of different types of drugs and alcohol, and they can all lead to addiction.
Alcohol is enjoyed by millions of people in the UK in a measured, sensible and healthy way. However, the issue is complex, and there are people for whom alcohol becomes a necessity—an addiction. Such people can end up losing their jobs or using all their household income
490WH
to fuel their alcohol addiction. With higher employment and higher disposable income, people are going out more and eating out more, and, possibly as a consequence, drinking more.
We have to address the drinking done by different groups in society, including young people. It is acknowledged in the strategy that across government, we have to look at how we spend money on alcohol education. We have to think about how we can better communicate to people the different effects of alcohol on their lives. In the Home Office we have sponsored a series of videos as part of "Watch over me", a project initiated by Milly Dowler's family, on young people and personal safety, and one of those videos deals with alcohol.
I think that before I arrived my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) mentioned people who drink and make themselves vulnerable to sexual assault, which is of course a serious problem. The Home Secretary has just announced £4 million more for sexual assault referral centres and other services for victims of sexual assault. That is one part of the jigsaw of tackling such problems. Importantly, however, we also need to think about how carefully we look after ourselves, so as not to make ourselves vulnerable when we have a good night out.
We want to start the process of changing the culture of drinking to get drunk, but it will not be easy. We shall look into the compulsory labelling of alcohol. There is a lot of debate and discussion about that, and some valid points have been made this afternoon about people's understanding of units of alcohol and what they mean. I have been reading in preparation for the debate, and I understand that the size of the average wine glass has increased. As a result, our preconception of what is meant by "a glass of wine", gained from what we read in magazines and other publications, and from what we see in leaflets distributed by the Department of Health about units of alcohol, has been skewed.
There are new drinks on the market. We need to consider how the industry should deal with them, and how it can help people to be more certain about what they are drinking, and its impact on them. Consequently, they will be able to gauge what they drink, and understand better what they are drinking—and what they should not drink, and what they should not drink more of.
Advertising has been mentioned. I understand that Ofcom will undertake a review of the code of practice for television advertisers, to ensure that it does not target young drinkers or glamorise irresponsible behaviour. We are also considering promotions.
In preparation for this afternoon's debate, I read through one of the current codes. The worry is that it is not being enforced as well as it should be, and I wonder whether we should take another look at that. We need to work with the industry to achieve what we want.
Supermarkets and retailers have been mentioned, and they are not outside the rules. Clear guidelines are in place for retailers, even if they are not being implemented as they should—for example, those on drink sold in supermarkets in places where children might go. I recall walking into a supermarket and seeing near the entrance a promotion of wine at a lower price. I have also seen wine displays at the checkout counter.

491WH
Those are some of the issues that need to be considered so that we can better enforce the guidelines and pick up on retailers and licensees who do not abide by the rules.
Treatment for alcohol misuse is a huge problem. We need a better understanding of what treatment is available. Part of the challenge for me, since becoming drugs Minister, has been to identify not only what drugs treatment is out there but, just as important, which treatments work and which do not. We need to adopt a similar approach to alcohol-related treatment. The fact that there is an ongoing audit of treatment should not prevent primary care trusts and others from identifying such issues in local communities. As I said, drugs and alcohol action teams already examine the issue in partnership, with PCTs.
We are trying to ensure that those who work in the health service—doctors, nurses and other health professionals—can identify alcohol misuse among their patients. I understand that over the next 18 months, the Department of Health will raise the profile of alcohol education for health professionals with the appointment of a deputy chief medical officer and a chief nursing officer as training champions.
The driving force behind the implementation of the drugs strategy is a joint one, shared by the Home Office and the Department of Health. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, it is a cross-government matter, and in that respect it is not easy. A number of issues are not the responsibility of one Department alone. We have to find a way to harness expertise—not in competition with each other, but in a way that facilitates delivery and ensures that the outcome is effective. We need to identify the gaps in treatment, and we need to ensure that everyone who needs it receives the necessary information.
A number of hon. Members mentioned alcohol-related crime and disorder, and under-age drinking, as causes for significant concern. During the summer we shall work with the police standards unit and the Association of Chief Police Officers, and invite forces across the country to take part in a co-ordinated programme of enforcement initiatives to tackle alcohol-fuelled violence, and to deal with the irresponsible few who encourage under-age and binge drinking. We want to make greater use of existing legislation, but we are considering whether to extend fixed penalty notices to those who run establishments, as well as to those who cause disorder on our streets.
In the time left to me, I shall not be able to do justice to the range of comments that have been made this afternoon—but I can at least say that it is important that our attitude to the problem is joined up. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central asked about the use classes order; I shall write to him about that. We must strongly encourage industry to give clear guidance and information. We want that done on a voluntary, partnership basis—but we will review the situation in the next Parliament, and if more legislation is needed, it will have to be enacted.

Burundi
3.30 pm
Ann McKechin: I welcome this opportunity to speak about a nation which receives very little public attention in the United Kingdom and which is facing a crucial period in its history, as it seeks to move from many years of conflict and debilitating poverty to a period of peace and, hopefully, real development progress.
I welcome the Government's country engagement plan for Burundi and their increased aid spending on that country in the past few years. The Department for International Development has been working hard to ensure that we have a comprehensive set of policies for the entire great lakes region. It is also working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence to achieve that. However, given that Burundi is in a critical period, I wish to press the Minister further on his future policy intentions.
Burundi is the smallest nation in the great lakes region, with a population of just over 6 million. It is also the third most impoverished nation in the world: more than 99 per cent. of its population lives beneath the absolute poverty threshold of $1 per day, and 85 to 90 per cent. of its people subsist on less than $1 per week. Like its neighbour Rwanda, it has suffered an extensive period of ethnic violence between its Hutu and Tutsi populations. It has been estimated that 200,000 people have been killed since 1993, when the conflict escalated. At times that internal conflict has spilled over into Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has had detrimental effects on the stability of the region. That is one of the main reasons why the search for peace in Burundi is so important.
Former South African President Nelson Mandela helped to broker a three-year power-sharing agreement in 2001. That was a key breakthrough. Subsequent negotiations led to the largest rebel group, the Forces for the Defence of Democracy—the FDD—signing a ceasefire with the Government in late 2002. However, this week the FDD accused the Government of not abiding by the peace accord and of not giving it adequate representation in the current Administration. I understand that, according to a United Nations report issued yesterday, the transitional Government are ready to meet the FDD's demands, but I would be grateful if the Minister said whether our Government have had any discussions this week with the Burundi authorities about the problem, and whether they are able to make any assessment of the consequences. Also, is there any sign of progress in persuading the remaining rebel group, the FNL—the Forces for National Liberation— to join with the transitional Government in the search for peace?
Elections are due to take place in October, and for them to pass off successfully it is crucial that security is achieved throughout the country. Sadly, however, extreme and intense violence continues to occur in pockets. In Bujumbura Rurale, the Centre de Blessé medical centre in Kamenge recently had 76 reported rape cases in just one week. On average in the last 12 months more than 100 rapes per month have been reported in that centre alone. That reported figure suggests that the real figure is far higher. In addition, civilians continue to be killed, seriously injured and forced to leave their home as a result of the conflict.

493WH
Last year, the African Union deployed a peacekeeping mission to Burundi, and I welcome our Government's £2 million contribution toward the cost of it, in addition to their share of the €25 million that was provided from the European Union aid fund. Despite that, the mission is suffering from a serious lack of funds and logistical support. However, as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan recently stated, it has performed very well in difficult circumstances and it has already made a significant contribution to establishing an atmosphere of peace and security. However, severe problems remain, not least in the area surrounding the capital, and it is important that the peacekeeping force is able to operate effectively throughout the country.
Last month, Kofi Annan, responding to a direct request from the African Union, proposed that the mission be taken over by the UN. I understand that the Security Council has, in turn, given him permission to plan a mission, but has yet to give final approval. Can the Minister confirm that the UK Government support the UN taking over from the African Union forces, and will they work to lobby other UN member states to support such a plan? I certainly encourage the Government to consider whether it is possible, prior to the October elections, to provide further funds to the force and any suitable technical assistance that it may require.
I am deeply concerned by the Rwandan Government's admission on 26 April to making a substantial deployment of troops along the borders of both Burundi and the DRC, despite denying such a suggestion earlier that week. On that same day, the DRC Foreign Minister was reported as saying that the presence of Rwandan troops amounted to a threat to the trust and bilateral relations between the two nations. That is another worrying sign, given the fact that that country is going through a transitional form of government. I am worried that such a deployment could have an equally destabilising effect on security in Burundi at this sensitive time in its search for peace and elections. Do the Government believe that Rwanda has legitimate security concerns to merit such movements, or that the terms of the memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and the Rwandan Government are being fully respected in respect of current events?
Development issues also affect Burundi. First, refugees are now returning to Burundi as peace begins to be established. They are coming back n their thousands, and those numbers are expected to increase dramatically once political leaders call for Burundi citizens to return to register to vote for the elections in October. Can the Minister give any indication of how DFID assesses the state of preparation of international agencies to cope with that influx? In the longer term, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees is planning for upwards of 500,000 people to be repatriated to Burundi by 2006. That is in addition to the ex-combatants and the formerly internally displaced people who are returning to their homes in rural areas. In such a small and terribly impoverished nation, that creates a tremendous stress on very poor rural communities. I urge DFID to assist in strengthening basic facilities in the rural communities to cope with the influx and provide funds for projects to establish links between the returning groups to prevent the possibility of further conflict.
494WH
A study published this week by Médecins sans Frontiéres shows that mortality rates in Burundi are three times higher than those of a country in a stable situation, and well above the internationally recognised thresholds that indicate an emergency situation. The main causes of mortality are identified as infectious diseases: malaria is the main killer, but there is an increasing and worrying incidence of HIV/AIDS infection. Despite the fact that the right to health is enshrined in the policy of the Burundi Ministry of Health, the study shows that the cost-recovery system operated by the Ministry, whereby patients pay the entire cost of all medical acts, medicines and laboratory tests, excludes almost 1 million people—just less than one fifth of the total population—from any type of basic health care. In addition, the researchers found that more than 80 per cent. of the households that consult health centres are obliged to resort to extreme solutions, such as selling cattle or land, or incurring debt from their neighbours, to pay the price of the consultation.
DFID's analysis points to the fact that immunisation rates have dropped from 83 per cent. in 1993 to only 54 per cent. in 2001. One of the examples quoted in the report shows clearly how the system has exacerbated the current problems. A man called Reverien from the Musaga district said:
"My wife died two months ago, very probably from malaria because she had a lot of fever and vomiting. But she never went to a health centre because of lack of money. I don't even have enough to feed my two children, so how could I have paid the price of a consultation? I thought she would eventually get better. That didn't happen. After four months in that state, she finally died."
The 2003 budget for the Ministry of Health was estimated to be only 2.2 per cent. of the total budget. An adequate basic service for all cannot be obtained from such a budget. The human price of the inadequacies of the current system cannot be overestimated. The funds pledged at the international donor conference held in Brussels in January this year focused on the clearly important issues of demobilisation and the return of refugees. However, the future of the health and education sectors in Burundi was not even discussed at that meeting. I am sure that the Minister agrees that there is an urgent need to ensure that a free basic health care system is introduced in Burundi, as it is a key prerequisite to development, progress and disease control. Has his Department held discussions with the Burundian authorities, the European Union and our international partners on that issue? Will the Government urge that appropriate exemptions from the cost-recovery scheme be made for vulnerable elements of the population, to ensure that every person can receive basic health coverage?
Burundi also suffers from unsustainable levels of debt. Its economy is highly dependent on coffee exports, the global market price of which remains depressed. It is entitled to apply for relief under the heavily indebted poor countries scheme, but due to the level of conflict in recent years it has yet to reach the initial decision point. Given that the final expiry date for reaching the decision point under the HIPC scheme is later this year. I urge my hon. Friend to put pressure on the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to consider an alternative arrangement to allow Burundi to obtain that essential concession —when elections have taken place and, hopefully, stability has been achieved. The recent announcement of bilateral debt relief by the Paris Club

495WH
of creditors is welcome, but given Burundi's precarious financial position, further relief from the HIPC initiative is vital if more funds are to be spent on services, such as health and education.
Earlier this year, I was asked by International Alert, a United Kingdom non-governmental organisation, to take part in an evaluation of parliamentary peace forums known collectively as the AMANI forum, that have been established in Parliaments throughout the great lakes region. The role of the forums in Uganda and Kenya has made an important contribution to the search for reconciliation and peace. Unfortunately, due to security concerns at the time, I was unable to take part in the visit to the Burundi Parliament, but it is clear that its parliamentarians often feel isolated and that they lack either the capacity or experience to consider many of the complex problems that they face, especially—as in any impoverished nation—in relation to their control of the armed forces in the country and the attempt to reconcile their communities. Has the Department for International Development made an assessment of how it can support the parliamentarians as part of its declared objective to support peace-building activities in the country? As my hon. Friend will be aware, the UN is proposing to hold a special conference on the great lakes region later this year. It is important that parliamentarians and Ministers from the region take a full part in the work programme. I hope that his Department can assist in that respect.
A huge number of complex problems face Burundi. However, this year gives it and its citizens a window of hope. As I said, I welcome the Government's increased commitment, but I strongly urge them to continue working as hard as possible to allow peace and democracy to have a chance. Burundi and its people have suffered greatly and now is our time to help them.
3.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on securing the debate on Burundi and, more generally, on her work with the all-party group on heavily indebted poor countries. She is a great campaigner in the House on many specific issues relating to Burundi. I also welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has succeeded in securing the debate because it provides an opportunity to highlight the work that the UK and the rest of the international community are doing to help bring about lasting peace in Burundi and alleviate the population's suffering, which she so graphically described.
In effect, the country has spent the past 10 years in the grip of an appalling civil war. I agree that this is a critical time for Burundi. My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that the date for the end of the transitional Government created by the Arusha accords of 2000 is fast approaching. If the transition is to be successful, elections to appoint a new Government and a new president must take place before 31 October. To create an environment conducive to elections, the process of demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration must be up and running, and army integration and planning for security sector reform must be well under way. That will
496WH
require not only significant political commitment in Burundi but the active engagement and support of the international community, without which the peace process could, sadly, fail, potentially plunging Burundi back into civil war, with considerable adverse consequences for the rest of the great lakes region.
As my hon. Friend highlighted, the humanitarian situation in Burundi is grim. The country is one of the poorest in the world, with quite appalling human development indicators. It rates as low as 171st out of 175 on the UN world development index, and almost 60 per cent. of its population live on less than $1 a day. Life expectancy at birth is only 40 years—a drop of 10 years since the start of the conflict in 1993, and—to complete a particularly grim picture—the mortality rate among under-fives is one of the highest in the world, with one Burundian child dying every 10 minutes. On top of all that, large numbers of refugees and internally displaced people are returning home as a result of the reduction in conflict; that is putting pressure on host communities, which already have little capacity to cope.
My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that the UK, through the Department for International Development, has significantly geared up its response to Burundi's needs in recent years. We have developed a strong relationship with the Government of Burundi, and I believe that we are respected in the donor community and seen as unbiased and a serious supporter. In the last financial year, the Department committed more than £10 million to Burundi, including significant contributions to the African Union peacekeeping force, about which I shall say a little more in due course. Our staff have also sought to play an active role in improving donor co-ordination in Burundi, working closely with key multilaterals, such as the World Bank, the UN and the European Commission, on issues such as the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration process, security sector reform and election support, which is crucial in the context of the upcoming parliamentary elections. We are also working on humanitarian assistance and, more generally, on social and economic reform.
My hon. Friend touched on the African Union mission in Burundi, which comprises 2,500 troops. It is particularly significant, because it is the African Union's first peacekeeping force to be deployed in Africa. It has been in place since June 2003, and its deployment has been an essential part of the search for a sustainable peace. I want to place on record our appreciation of the contributions that Mozambique, Ethiopia and, in particular, South Africa have made to the force. The UK has provided £5.7 million to support the mission, including support for the Mozambique contingent. My understanding is that the force has sufficient funding at the moment and for the period up to the possible conversion to a UN mission. However, we shall keep the significance and terms of funding under close review, to help us to play our part in ensuring that such peacekeeping contributions can continue.
My hon. Friend asked whether the UK supported the UN Secretary-General's proposal for the creation of a UN peacekeeping mission to take over from the African Union force. We strongly support that, and we hope that there will soon be agreement on a positive Security Council resolution to begin the process. Clearly, with a robust mandate from the Security Council and the

497WH
increased human and financial resources, a UN peacekeeping operation should not only help to create a more secure and stable environment but should also help to move forward the urgent work that is needed on disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration and election preparations.
Alongside the humanitarian challenges in Burundi, which are immense, we need to put the progress that has been made in context. More of the country is becoming accessible as the level of conflict is reduced. United Nations agencies are beginning to gear up their work significantly to meet the challenges that will, clearly, continue to be acute in the coming, months. We are expecting the UN to issue a revised, consolidated appeal for Burundi, based on the latest assessment of the situation there. We are pleased that the humanitarian agencies in the field are strengthening their capacity to deal with the current situation. In particular, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has established regional offices in country, and has good systems in place to deal with the current planned returns of refugees, to which my hon. Friend alluded. As we all know, refugees make their own decisions on when and how to move. Contingency plans are in place to assist with such movements, but we must be in a position to respond quickly if people return in significant numbers. I am confident that my Department has the systems in place that will enable us to respond quickly in that case.
My hon. Friend focused, rightly, I think, on the plight of the civilian population in Bujumbura Rurale, who have borne the brunt of the continued fighting in recent months involving the Burundian army, supported by the Conseil National pour la Défense de la Démocratie and the Front pour la Défense de La Démocratie, in opposition to the Force Nationale de Libération. Large numbers of people, as my hon. Friend said, have had to flee their homes. The incidence of rape and violent attacks is high, and humanitarian access to the area continues to be difficult. Despite the FNL's recent announcement of a ceasefire and its willingness to negotiate directly with Government, fighting continues in three districts where the FNL has concentrated its forces. Tens of thousands of people remain displaced from those areas and are dependent on deliveries of food from the World Food Programme and non-food items from the Catholic Relief Services. We hope that the FNL offer of a unilateral ceasefire will be taken up by the Burundi Government and that the latter will cease their current offensive against the FNL. We hope that all sides will accept the futility of continuing to fight and will enable the FNL to take part in the political process that has gained such success and momentum since the Arusha accords. It is clearly for Burundians to decide whether the FNL should join the transitional Government, but the matter remains a difficult subject for negotiation, not least because of the FNL's appalling human rights record, of which I am sure my hon. Friend is aware.
My hon. Friend asked about our views on the possible withdrawal of the CNDD-FDD from the unity Government. We understand that their agreement to join the transitional Government last year was a huge step forward on the road to peace in Burundi. It would have enormous implications for the future of the
498WH
country if the movement decided to withdraw from government at this critical stage in the run-up to the end of the transitional administration. We understand that the Government are working hard to overcome the difficulties perceived by the CNDD-FDD. I hope that it will be only a matter of days before the key issues that divide the parties are resolved. It is worth noting that the CNDD-FDD has given assurances that its possible withdrawal from the unity Government would not signify a return to arms. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes that commitment, and I hope that that commitment and the work of the Government will enable the concerns between the two parties to be resolved.
DFID has supported the work of Médicins Sans Fontières in Bujumbura Rurale, including its centre for war wounded at Kamenge. We are considering what further assistance we can provide. We are due to send a needs assessment mission to Burundi this month, in order to identify how else we can support the Burundians in terms of health and other essential services. My hon. Friend asked about our views on health care. We welcome the extremely useful MSF report. Our priority is to ensure that the poorest of the poor are able to access medical services and, for the moment, the best way to achieve that is through health services being provided free of charge. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about the need to strengthen the country's health systems. We already provide significant support for health care through our humanitarian assistance, particularly the regional support that we give to those tackling HIV/AIDS, to which my hon. Friend alluded.
Finally, I shall touch briefly on my hon. Friend's concerns about the HIPC initiative. Although the UK is not one of Burundi's bilateral creditors, we strongly support its moving towards the HIPC decision point, which we hope will be reached in mid-2005, with completion point in December 2005 at the earliest. How are we helping to achieve that? So far, we have contributed $2 million to the multi-donor debt trust fund to help with arrears clearance and with the regularisation of relations with creditors, which is one of the prerequisites for the HIPC decision point, and offering ongoing technical assistance to the Ministry of Finance—in particular its debt management division—to help it to make progress in that respect. We are also encouraging other donors, as my hon. Friend suggested we should, to follow the UK's example of going further than is required under the HIPC initiative by trying to provide 100 per cent. relief on the debts owed by countries when they qualify for the HIPC initiative. We are encouraged by the World Bank and the IMF's approval in January of Burundi's first IMF poverty reduction and growth facility. We are also encouraged by the publication of the interim poverty reduction strategy in Burundi and, as my hon. Friend also mentioned, the recent Paris Club granting of debt relief for Burundi on Naples terms.
I have tried to answer as many as possible of my hon. Friend's questions. I shall refer to Hansard to see whether there are any others to which I should respond, and if there are I shall write to her.

Small Schools
3.59 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: My first aim in this short debate is to celebrate—
4 pm
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
4.26 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Webb: As I was saying, I seek first to celebrate the work of small schools in my constituency. In the South Gloucestershire unitary council area there are eight schools with fewer than 100 pupils, all in my constituency. I have recently visited three of them: Redwick and Northwick primary school, Oldbury-on-Severn primary school and Horton primary school. I visited the last two as part of the Global Campaign for Education's "MPs' back to school" day, in which many hon. Members participated.
On seeing the children's excellent presentations during those visits, and after chatting to staff, parents and governors, I was struck by how valuable small schools are as part of the variety of local authorities' educational provision. Large schools clearly have strengths and advantages, but small schools have features that I had not thought about very hard until I saw them for myself. I wish to draw the Minister's attention to some of those strengths, which had not previously occurred to me. I am sure that he, as the Minister for School Standards, already knows of them, but I will highlight them anyway on the off-chance that he does not.
I was struck by the way in which a small school sometimes works for a child who may not be very confident and who may have tried to settle at a larger school, but for whom that had not really worked. I met a few children who had moved to a smaller school environment. They had felt more secure and had received slightly more individual attention, and they had prospered. The nice thing was that they had not been left at that stage, but had flourished in an environment in which everyone counts, everyone knows everyone else, and everyone has to play their part. It was noticeable in some of the presentations on education that I saw, especially in Horton school, which is the smallest school in the authority area, that—certainly among the older pupils—every child took part and had to be involved. In that environment, children can flourish who might not do so well in a larger school environment. They can mature in a desirable way and take on responsibilities, so that when they have become the oldest children in the school, they look after the younger children. I asked what happens when they have to go to the very big school down the road, and whether they are overwhelmed. I was told that they sometimes find the first open day visit daunting, but that, because they have gained confidence and a sense of security, the transition from a small school to one of the larger comprehensives works well—rather better than I might have anticipated, in fact.
500WH
Something else that struck me about those schools was that they are often linked to a particular village. The other five small schools of the eight that I mentioned are: Iron Acton school, Old Sodbury primary school, Rangeworthy primary school, St. Andrews primary school at Cromhall, and Tortworth primary school. Each of those schools is linked to one village in my constituency, usually relatively small, and the school is in many ways the heart of the village. Some villages in my constituency lost their schools, which seemed to rip the heart out of those villages. I am keen to ensure that does not happen again. We should celebrate what is good in those schools, and develop their roles. The fact the schools are so central to village life means that their fundraising achievements are phenomenal—well beyond what one would expect for small schools, with a small number of parents involved. The whole community rallies round and they raise phenomenal amounts of money to help keep the school going. Obviously, we will come back to the issue of funding in a moment.
The schools have two roles. Their traditional role is as a school for the children in the village. However, in some villages, house prices have gone up and it has become difficult for young families to move into the village; children become adults, and perhaps move away, but their parents stay in the village in the house in which they were living. The actual number of children who live in the village and go to the village school may therefore diminish somewhat. However, that does not diminish the value of those schools, because parents from a wider catchment area find that there is something special about the smaller schools, which they want. I stress that my children attend a village school with about 200 children; it is a super school, and I do not mean to undermine the work of the larger schools. My point is simply that we need variety in provision. That is one of my key messages today—larger schools have their place and can offer particular things, but small schools are a key part of the overall pattern.
I am delighted that the Government have a presumption against the closure of rural schools. That is welcome, and I understand that the pace of rural school closures has slowed considerably. I hope that the Minister will keep an eye on South Gloucestershire to see that that policy is rigorously enforced in that authority, which has some very small schools. One of the problems is that it is obviously more expensive, both for the authority and the school itself, to run a small school. There is still one building to maintain and still one roof that can leak no matter how many children there are beneath it.
Similarly, the administrative burdens—the form filling and reporting back requirements—are often just as onerous for a head with 30 pupils as for one with 130. I have heard suggestions that it might be possible to reduce the administrative burden on the head teachers of small schools. The head teacher in Oldbury-on-Severn school spends half his week teaching, and the headmistress at Horton a similar proportion. Clearly, they are trying to fulfil the roles that would be met by several members of staff in a larger school. Given that in smaller schools those roles fall on one pair of very committed shoulders, is there anything that could be done to take some of the administrative burden off the heads of some of the small schools? I hope that the Minister can offer me some encouragement on that.

501WH
One of the ways in which central Government try to help local authorities to deal with some of the issues is through additional funding for sparsity. One of the problems in an authority such as South Gloucestershire is that we are neither one thing nor the other. Certainly, all the small schools are in my part of the authority, but other parts include urban Kingswood and the north Bristol fringe. As a whole, the population of South Gloucestershire is not deemed to be particularly sparse. The consequence of that is that we do not really get much help with the additional costs of running our small schools. That adds to the financial pressure. Could the Minister comment on the possibility of looking at the issue at sub-local authority level—dealing not with averages but with whether there are sparsity issues within the authority area? Are there wards where the population is sparse, where the population is small, and the local school is small and expensive to run? Could that not be recognised?
In general, there is a funding issue. I make no apology for raising the matter, because part of the reason why there is pressure on small schools in my authority is the tight financial settlement for South Gloucestershire, which continues to be one of the lowest funded authorities per primary pupil in Britain. We had a victory on that front: the Government listened, said that the funding formula was not fair, and introduced a new formula. I warmly welcomed that. Furthermore, I know that South Gloucestershire will never be the top funded authority in the country—nor should it be. However, our complaint is that our new funding has been put on hold, because the application of ceilings and floors has meant that £4 million last year and £4 million this year was withheld from South Gloucestershire to fund needy authorities—such as Kensington and Chelsea—and to put a floor under their grants.
Given that the Government have now brought in a fairer funding formula, which we support, and have accepted that we need that extra £4 million, small schools and parents in my authority want to know how long we will have to wait for it. That is a serious, critical question. The new rules quite properly say that we need more money, but will the new system ever be phased in? One accepts the need for some sort of phasing, but there is no end in sight to the phasing process. When will it end? When will the authority get that money? If the authority knew that that money was coming through, the squeeze on the smaller schools might not be as severe as I fear it will become. When will that ceiling go? Can things be done to ease the financial burden on some of the schools?
One argument is, "Let us not get too excited about buildings and structures. Instead, let us look at the quality of education." I agree that that must be our starting point. I bring to this debate my first-hand experience of several of these schools, and can say that they are offering education of excellent quality. They are small not because they are not excellent but because they are physically small and because of some of the demographic factors that I mentioned. There is no suggestion that the lack of numbers of pupils at some of these schools is due to lack of quality—indeed, some of them are full to the brim or even oversubscribed because they are excellent, popular schools.
502WH
The question arises how to deal with fluctuations in numbers. If a school has 35 pupils, as one school in my constituency has, and two big families move out, it can lose a fifth or a sixth of its pupil roll overnight. There is great volatility from one year to the next. One of my worries is that a small school will be closed in error, the village will experience a baby boom a few years later, and people in the village will say, "Wouldn't it be great if we still had a village school?" A school seldom returns once it has gone. I urge central Government to impress on local authorities the need to take the long view. A school in my authority, Trinity school, is no longer a small school because it now serves the three villages—hence its name—of Badminton, Acton Turville and Tormarton; but at times, there has been pressure on it to shut. Some of my predecessors, such as the late Heather Larkins, who was my predecessor as candidate in Northavon, pressed for that school to be kept open when the numbers merchants—the accountants—were saying, "It's too expensive and there are not enough children." That school survived and is flourishing. It is a large and growing school. I would be very sad to see small village schools lose their long-term future because of temporary lulls and cyclical patterns in birth rates.
This debate is not only about education but about community and quality of life. I want small schools to prosper and develop. Throughout Britain, primary teachers are being laid off because of falling rolls and a decreasing need for primary teachers. Does not that give us an opportunity to think afresh about small schools? They have tremendous potential to be centres for their communities, not only in school hours but out of hours and at weekends. They can be places that health bodies as well as education bodies can use. The buildings could be used and the costs shared. There are great ideas for using technology, which the Minister will no doubt share with us, such as enabling a neighbouring school with a specialist teacher in a particular subject to use IT to teach at both sites at once.
There is so much imagination around, and I would be sad if a numbers-driven process meant pressure on the future of schools that have real potential. We should not be misled by relatively small numbers into thinking that they are not very good schools that should not be part of long-term provision. Clearly, transport is an issue in an area such as mine. If we start to pressurise some of the smaller schools, yet more people will have to ferry their children longer distances to school. Again, this debate is not simply about education. Our starting point is the quality of the children's educational experience, but it has to be seen in the context of the whole community.
I hope that my remarks have given a flavour of how unique small village schools are. Each of the eight schools that I mentioned is associated with a village in my constituency. Many families who live in the village now will have sent their children to the village school, but the schools draw in people from a wider catchment area as well, and they can often do things that other schools cannot because of the flexibility of being a small school. Oldbury-on-Severn school, which I mentioned, will organise a poet to conduct poetry sessions, or a potter to do artwork with the children, because that is a particular interest of the head teacher, who uses his contacts. Such schools are often driven by one or more dynamic individuals. What strikes me on my visits is

503WH
how often head teachers, other staff and governors go the extra mile. The schools are centres of commitment as well as excellence.
I do not want to romanticise or idealise. Small schools face pressures—for example, they are more expensive to run. However, we can mitigate some of those problems. We can try to alleviate some of the administrative burden on the senior staff. We can share the buildings with other community groups for other educational purposes. We can use IT to bring in resources. Schools planning must not be an accountancy, numbers-driven process. It has to be about the quality of community and of children's education, and about diversity and choice for parents. I hope that the Minister shares my passion for the high-quality education that so many small and village schools provide.
4.40 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): It is a pleasure for me to be able to put on the record the Government's appreciation of the work that is done in small schools around the country, particularly in South Gloucestershire. I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). I almost called him my hon. Friend, and although I do not want to end his political career, I have known him for more than 10 years and I hope that he does not mind if I am confused about whether to call him the hon. Gentleman or my hon. Friend.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not only on the passion that he brought to the subject of small schooling, but also on the insights of his speech, which spoke well for his knowledge of the schools in his area and about the needs that exist in areas and constituencies like his. It also spoke well for the role of schooling as a public service that binds together a community, is a resource for it, strengthens it and gives it a sense of identity and pride as well as a future.
I intend to say a bit about how the Government see their responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman knows that the organisation of schooling has been a prime responsibility for local government for a long time, and we in central Government respect the constitutional relationship and settlement between local and central Government. I hope to say a bit about how central Government try to support local government in the difficult decisions it faces about how to balance the conflicting pressures that arise as populations move and change.
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I am an avid reader of his column in the Bristol Evening Post, so I was able to discover that on "MPs' back to school" day he went to Horton primary school and Oldbury-on-Severn primary school. I understand that Horton has 43 pupils on the roll and Oldbury-on-Severn has 50. However, they are not quite as small as the 27-pupil school that I saw near Shrewsbury in autumn 2003. It is good to read their recent inspection reports. Horton was judged in September 2003 and the inspectors concluded that it was
"a good school where pupils achieve well".
504WH
The less recent inspection of Oldbury-on-Severn in July 1999 concluded that the school performed well across a wide range of activities.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman drew a distinction between funding numbers and funding quality, because we in Government have a responsibility to focus on funding to ensure that quality and standards are raised. Some schools struggle to attract pupils because parents conclude that the education that they provide is not of a sufficient standard In other areas, schools can struggle to get enough pupils because of demographic change, which is not a reflection on the quality of schooling. I recognise that. The Government see that some special benefits can exist in smaller schools.
There are 18,000 primary schools in England. It is striking that the Department for Education and Skills definition of a small school is one with fewer than 200 pupils. The hon. Gentleman might think—I would probably agree—that 200 is large in comparison with some of the schools to which he has referred. I do not think that he would describe a school with 200 pupils as small. Some 7,000 schools—nearly 40 per cent. of the total—have fewer than 200 pupils. However, it is striking that 2,500 schools have fewer than 100 pupils. Nearly 14 per cent. of primary schools have fewer than 100 pupils and most of those are in rural areas. In South Gloucestershire nearly 40 per cent. of primary schools have fewer than 200 pupils, which means that it corresponds almost exactly with the national average.
The hon. Gentleman made the point in his now-famous article in the Bristol Evening Post that small village schools are at the heart of rural communities, which is why I was glad that he referred to the presumption that the Government have introduced against closing rural schools. That presumption was introduced in 1998 and it exists today. The presumption cannot mean, and I am sure that he did not expect it to mean, that no school, rural or otherwise, can ever close. That would not be sensible. However, it ensures that there must be a strong case for closing a small rural school, and it must clearly be in the best interests of education in the area. I am conscious of my limited powers in this respect, but I am pleased to report that the introduction of this presumption seems to be having some effect. Seven years ago, the average number of rural schools closed was 30 a year; now, it is five a year. No rural school in South Gloucestershire has closed in the past six years, and no doubt that is in part testimony to the hon. Gentleman's vigorous campaigning.
Significant challenges lie ahead for schools, small and large, and it is important that I reflect on them honestly, because that is important for teachers and pupils. Last year, there were 500,000 surplus places in primary schools in England—that is 12 per cent. of capacity, which is a significant proportion. On current estimates, we are due to lose about 50,000 pupils per year from the primary sector in each of the next two or three years. That worries local authorities, which, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's antipathy towards accountants, must be concerned about the proper use of resources. Authorities would greatly prefer to be paying for teachers than for empty desks. That is the challenge posed by the problem of surplus places in particular parts of the country.

505WH
In cases where there are falling rolls or schools are struggling to make up numbers, it is important that we put in place the right arrangements to ensure sufficient flexibility is built in for those schools and local government. In his article in the Bristol Evening Post the hon. Gentleman talked about the financial pressures on rural schools. It is important to be aware of the significantly increased funding that is available in south Gloucestershire. I was struck when I read that for pupils aged between three and 19 in south Gloucestershire, a real-terms increase of some £750 per pupil had been invested between 1997–98 and 2004–05. Under current spending, investment per pupil has gone from £2,510 to £3,260 in real terms. The capital position is also striking. Funding in 1997–98 was about £5 million. So far in 2004–05, it is nearly £19 million. That funding relates to some of the opportunities for extended use of schools to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Webb: The Minister knows that we could trade statistics on whether education funding is a lot more or only a bit more generous. Last week, I visited a school, which I will not name, and the head said that unless the budget was sorted next year, she would be unable to avoid sacking teachers. That is not because numbers are down, but because money is so tight. Will the Minister address my specific point about the ceiling? The Government admit that South Gloucestershire needs another £4 million, but it appears that they will never phase in the new regime. It would make a big difference if that phase-in happened a bit quicker, because the ceiling is making things difficult.
Mr. Miliband: I am happy to address that point. As always, the hon. Gentleman is a few steps ahead of me: his mind works rather faster than my mouth can speak. However, I hope to deal with some of his points. Whatever the funding pressures —I do not deny that they exist—he and I agree that funding now starts from a much higher base on both the current and the capital side.
It is also important to recognise that this year there is a degree of protection that has never existed before in the form of the 4 per cent. minimum funding guarantee per pupil for every school in the country. There is also a 5 per cent. floor per pupil for every local authority in the country, offering protection to schools, small and large, that has never before existed. On that 4 per cent. per pupil base, we have put in special protection for schools that are facing the challenge of falling rolls. We recognise that there are fixed costs, such as cleaning, repairs and heating, which can be a particular challenge. The formula is designed to recognise that.
The hon. Gentleman also knows, although somewhat ungenerously he did not mention it, that there are special arrangements for the very small schools with 75 pupils or fewer. A much higher proportion of their funding is delivered through the operation of factors other than pupil numbers. The guarantee for small schools will allow them to substitute their proportion of pupil-related funding; it will be for local education
506WH
authorities to tell them exactly what that is. I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to explain the special protection that we have given to the very small schools, if that will be useful.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government's funding formula, which counts the number of pupils, their particular needs—for English as a second language, perhaps, or as a result of poverty— and the additional costs that arise in particular parts of the country, gives more to some areas than to others. He is right to say that South Gloucestershire is on the ceiling. It receives more money than other authorities. This year, the ceiling is 6.8 per cent. per pupil compared with a floor of 5 per cent. Therefore, there is a substantial difference between a ceiling authority and a floor authority, and between a ceiling authority and an average one. The previous year, the gap was between a ceiling of 7 per cent. and a floor of 3.2 per cent. Over those two years, there have been substantial efforts to deliver to South Gloucestershire the increases that have been judged to be necessary from the funding formula.
I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to the need to phase in any new formula, because that is the right thing to do. It would be wrong if certain schools were to have cash cuts in their budgets, or even real-terms cuts. That necessitates a system of ceilings and floors. However, he is wrong to say that that means that South Gloucestershire will never receive its fair share. Year by year, the amount that South Gloucestershire receives rises, compared with the average as well as with the floor. These things depend on future judgments about how high the ceiling or floor should be, but over two years there has been substantial extra money.
The hon. Gentleman briefly talked about work force reform. That presents particular opportunities and challenges for small schools. I am very impressed by the pilot work that has been done in the small schools in the area west of Shrewsbury that I visited. It shows how small schools can make work force reform work for them. The national remodelling team has a national centre and website as well as representatives in each local authority, and it can show any school how other schools of similar size and budget are dealing with the challenge of work force reform. The work force reform agreement is supported by signatories from the National Association of Head Teachers, teachers and support staff. We are working with six LEAs and more than 75 schools to develop costed proposals for the ways in which schools can meet the challenge of delivering 10 per cent. of teachers' time for preparation, planning and assessment of classes in 2005–06.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the subject of administration. It is important that we free teachers to focus on teaching. However, it is not right that schools with 30 pupils face similar administrative burdens as do those with 130. I take on board the point that forms need to be filled in anyway, but it is quicker to fill them in for 30 pupils than for 130. Nevertheless, no one beats me in my zeal to reduce the administrative burdens and bureaucracy, and the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the Government have well advanced plans to end the process of sending materials to schools in a great batch and to introduce instead an online ordering system that will allow schools to customise DFES materials to their own benefit and to introduce a principle of "collect once, use many times"

507WH
for all the data that is required by different Government agencies, both local and national. I agree that it is absurd for any school to be asked for the same information by different public agencies. The data protocol means that that will no longer happen.
I turn to my final points. Extended schools are extended in the sense that they offer before or after-school services and also, in a less than literal interpretation of that term, opportunities for nursery provision for under-fives. I hope that local authorities can use school sites in an imaginative way, because the benefits to the community from doing so are clear. We encourage innovation and flexibility in that area.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the opportunities for schools to co-operate together to share costs, notably of staff. Federations represent a particular example of that, but collaboration and clustering between primary schools allows them to share the services of specialist staff for music and other
508WH
subjects, or administrative staff and IT officers. I agree with him that, especially for small schools but, in fact, for most primary schools, there are big advantages to be gained from closer collaboration. That can help spread good practice and raise standards of teaching, learning and costs. We are in favour of that.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. It means that, as the authorities in South Gloucestershire analyse how to deal with the difficulties, we in the Department can keep a careful eye on what is going on. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will keep us on our toes and, if there is anything we can do, he will alert us to that fact. We are resolute in our belief that it is a local responsibility to deliver the diversity of provision that is appropriate to local needs. I hope that the framework that is now in place to balance the rights and responsibilities of central and local government allows parental choice and pupil need to be met in an appropriate way.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Five o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Solicitor-General what recent discussions the Serious Fraud Office has had with its EU counterparts. [169969]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Serious Fraud Office has ongoing operational contact with its EU counterparts. The SFO uses its investigation powers under the Criminal Justice Act 1987 to provide mutual legal assistance to other EU member states.

  The Serious Fraud Office's Head of Policy recently attended a meeting at Eurojust and there are regular contacts between SFO senior staff and senior OLAF officials.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Administration Estimate
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what the reasons were for the reduction in the Administration Estimate from 2000–01 to 2001–02, as indicated in Table 4 of the Commission's Annual Report for 2001–02; and what the final administration accounts outturn figure for 2002–03 was. [169406]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The reduction in the net cash required was due, in the main, to the decrease in expenditure on Portcullis House following its completion.

  The resource outturn for 2002–03 on the House of Commons Administration Estimate was £180.0 million and the corresponding net cash requirement was £138.3 million. Further information can be found in the published House of Commons: Administration Resource Accounts 2002–03 (HC67).

  Electricity Consumption
  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer of 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 236W, on electricity consumption, what factors underlie the increase in consumption between 1997 and 2003; and what steps the commission is taking to reduce electricity consumption. [169864]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  Underlying factors include the increase in size of the Parliamentary Estate, increased use of office equipment and improvements in environmental controls, such as ventilation, air extraction and air-conditioning, to meet new 1488W
  regulations. Energy awareness and good housekeeping are regularly promoted and the estate is maintained to a high standard; for example the main Palace chillers were replaced recently with modern high efficiency plant.

  Security of Communications
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on security of communications in the House against eavesdropping in respect of developments in Bluetooth technology. [169801]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The House of Commons authorities have taken a cautious approach to the introduction of wireless technology within Westminster because of security concerns. No services using wireless technologies will be offered until these concerns have been addressed.

  I understand that the Bluetooth function available on some mobile telephones could allow access to data and services on such phones. If phone owners are concerned about this potential vulnerability, they should disable the Bluetooth option using the menus on the handset.

  The Parliamentary Communications Department sent an e-mail with this advice to all network users on 30 April.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Expenditure (Entertainment)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her latest estimate is of the amount spent by her Department on official entertainment in each year from 1996–97 to 2004–05. [168999]

  Mr. Caborn
  All expenditure on official entertainment is made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on principles set out in Government guidance.

  The following table shows expenditure on entertainment by the Department. In a change to previous practice, figures from 1997–98 onwards are presented on an accruals basis. In 2002–03 changes were made in the way entertainment expenditure was captured to include associated staff costs following the contracting out of the hospitality service. Figures for 2004–05 are not available at present.

  £

  1996–1997

  41,000

  1997–1998

  15,269.81

  1998–1999

  24,496.51

  1999–2000

  33,359.78

  2000–2001

  51,666.75

  2001–2002

  32,586.56

  2002–2003

  87,150.29

  2003–20041

  78,144.29

  Notes:

  1Provisional, pending finalisation of annual accounts.

  Departmental Procurement
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the
  1489W
  (a) crockery, (b) cutlery and (c) glassware procured by her Department over the last five years is of British manufacture. [170796]

  Mr. Caborn
  Over the last five years, DCMS has procured the following;

  (a) Crockery: 100 per cent. British Manufactured

  (b) Cutlery: 100 per cent. British Manufactured

  (c) Glassware: 80 per cent. British Manufactured

  New Opportunities Fund
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much of the New Opportunities Fund is being provided to support children with special needs; and if she will make a statement. [170614]

  Estelle Morris
  The information is not collected in the way requested. However, a number of the New Opportunities Fund's programmes focus on children with special needs and I have asked the Chair of the Fund to write to the hon. Member with further details. I will arrange for copies of the letter to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Talented Athlete Scholarships
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much public funding has been spent on the Talented Athlete Scholarship Scheme; what sums are committed for(a) the current year and (b) future financial years; how many students are expected to be supported in 2004–05; and if she will make a statement. [171043]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: Exchequer funding of £3 million annually has been allocated to delivering the Talented Athletes Scholarship Scheme in 2004–05 and 2005–06. This year is the first round of the programme in which we are looking to help about 1,000 young talented athletes continue to develop in their performance sport alongside taking up employment or continuing with tertiary education. The first bursaries will be announced in early summer and the scholarships later in September.

WALES

  European Structural Funds
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had concerning the potential impact in Wales of changes in European structural funds after 31 December 2006. [169191]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with colleagues across Government and with the Assembly about a number of issues, including European Structural Funds.

  Dredging (Dee Estuary)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with English local authorities and environmental bodies regarding dredging in the Dee Estuary. [169192]
  1490W
  Mr. Hain
  Regulation of the Port of Mostyn's dredging proposals is a matter for the National Assembly, the Environment Agency, and the Department for Transport. The Environment Agency is advised in England by English Nature, and in Wales by the Countryside Council for Wales. English Nature has agreed that the Countryside Council for Wales should represent it in discussions on these proposals.

  Civil Service
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales concerning the relocation to Wales of civil service jobs. [169193]

  Mr. Hain
  The First Minister and I have had and will continue to have regular discussions.

  We will be working closely to pitch for as many of the jobs allotted for relocation to come to Wales—where we have a record second to none in providing a home for civil service jobs.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received from small business organisations in Wales regarding start-up schemes. [169194]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with small business organisations. The Government and the Assembly have created an extremely supportive environment to start up, grow and run a business.

  Waiting Lists
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about progress in reducing waiting times. [169195]

  Mr. Touhig
  I regularly meet the Assembly Health Minister concerning the health service in Wales: waiting times is one of the topics that we frequently discuss.

  The most recent Assembly quarterly waiting time statistics illustrates huge improvements in long waits for patients. There has been a 71.9 per cent. fall in the number of patients waiting over 18 months for inpatient treatment and a fall of over 36 per cent. in waiting times of over 18 months for an out-patient appointment.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the(a) latest activities of the Welsh monitoring sub-group for the miners' compensation scheme in Wales and (b) latest figures for disbursements under the scheme. [169188]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Welsh Sub-Group of the Coal Health Claims Monitoring Group, which I chair, meets on a regular basis and will next meet on 24 May to discuss progress of miners compensation in Wales.
  1491W
  To date, £300 million for respiratory disease and over £106 million for vibration white linger have been paid out to ex-miners and their families in Wales—bringing the total under both schemes to well over £400 million.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Anderson Inquiry
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether the final report of the mission, entitled "DG (SANCO)/3367/2001—MR Final", carried out from 1 to 5 October 2001 by the European Commission Food and Veterinary Office, was submitted to the Anderson Inquiry into foot and mouth disease; [166757]

  (2) whether the Department's Inquiry Liaison Unit was informed of the final report of the mission, entitled "DG (SANCO)/3367/2001—MR Final", carried out from 1 to 5 October 2001 by the European Commission Food and Veterinary Office. [166758]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is no record of the final report, "DG (SANCO)/3367/2001—MR Final", being received by the Department's Inquiry Liaison Unit and it was not sent to the Anderson Inquiry on foot and mouth disease. However, Dr. Anderson did meet the EU Commission to discuss the foot and mouth 2001 outbreak and the lessons learned. Defra also provided the Inquiry Liaison Unit with a submission, which was passed to the Anderson Inquiry, which plotted the legislative changes, and gave copies of the legislation and the Department's working instructions, since the last foot and mouth outbreak in 1967. The submission included a copy of Council Directive 80/217. As I made clear in the Adjournment Debate on 16 March 2004, we believe that 80/217 was properly implemented in the UK. The application by this Government was consistent with previous administrations.

  Aridity Index
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the aridity index was, broken down by country in(a) 1975, (b) 1985, (c) 1995 and (d) 2002. [165813]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The aridity index is currently being developed as an index of desertification risk for Mediterranean areas by Spanish and Portuguese academics and supported by European research funds. It is an index of the average water available in the soil, defined as the ratio between mean annual precipitation and mean annual evapotranspiration. The research work is scheduled for completion by the end of 2004.

  Breckland Farmland SSSI
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the success of the stone curlew within the Breckland Farmland Site of Special Scientific Interest is measured. [165144]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: The stone curlew population will be assessed for the whole of the Breckland pSPA, which includes Breckland Farmland SSSI. This assessment is based on annual
  1492W
  counts and is considered by English Nature in conjunction with available information on the UK population and distribution trends, to assess whether the pSPA is continuing to support the numbers of stone curlews for which it has been selected and make a contribution to the Favourable Conservation Status of the species across Europe.

  The conservation objective for Breckland pSPA is to maintain in favourable condition the habitats of the internationally important population of stone curlew. To date, the successful recovery of the stone curlew within the pSPA can be measured by the increase in numbers of breeding pairs since the start of the recovery project in 1985 and that the target of 200 pairs set in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan for the numbers of breeding pairs was achieved two years ahead of schedule and continues to rise.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the legal costs to date associated with the Breckland Farmland Site of Special Scientific Interest and the proposed Breckland Special Protection Area are(a) excluding costs relating to legal challenges and (b) including costs relating to legal challenges; and what other costs to date have been incurred by (i) English Nature and (ii) her Department. [165130]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The legal costs to date associated with the Breckland Farmland Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the proposed Breckland Special Protection Area incurred by English Nature are:(a) excluding costs relating to legal challenges, approximately £10,000; and (b) including costs relating to legal challenges, approximately £250,000, both amounts are subject to VAT.

  The first amount (a) includes legal advice concerning the SSSI notification process and letters of objection together with legal representation at the English Nature Council meeting in July 2001. Included within the costs at (b) is the cost of the High Court proceedings as incurred by English Nature in the legal challenge brought by the hon. Patrick Fisher and the Trustees of the Hon. P.V Fisher's Children's 1986 Settlement.

  With regard to any other costs incurred by (i) English Nature, I regret that these would be obtainable only at disproportionate cost but would cover the time provided by various members of staff involved in the proceedings. The costs incurred by (ii) Defra are negligible as the Department is not a party to the proceedings brought over Breckland Farmland SSSI.

  Energy Efficiency (Wirral, South)
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates she has made of the potential carbon savings that will be achieved in the UK as a result of implementing the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive by(a) 2010 and (b) 2020. [165280]

  Phil Hope
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government support the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and propose to transpose it into law through the Building Regulations. It requires member states to set standards, to require the provision of

  1493W
  certificates, and to inspect boilers and air conditioning systems. It does not include specific carbon saving measures, and therefore no estimates of savings have been made. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is confident however that implementation of the directive will heighten energy efficiency in the public's mind, and hence lead to improvements in buildings producing carbon savings in due course.

  EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26 April; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [169477]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I represented the United Kingdom at the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26 to 27 April 2004.

  After several hours of talks, the Irish Presidency concluded that it was not possible to identify a compromise proposal on the welfare of animals during transport that would command the support of a qualified majority of member states, and so the meeting concluded without agreement on that dossier. There are no plans to resume discussion of it. This outcome was disappointing for the Government, which had supported the Presidency's efforts to find a compromise that represented a genuine improvement in animal welfare over the current rules.

  On the approvals process for genetically modified organisms, there was no qualified majority of member states, either in favour of or against, the approval of sweetcorn from Bt11 maize for consumption in the EU. Under the rules of procedure for such approvals, the Commission is now able to take a decision under its own responsibility, from 1 May.

  Denmark reported on measures it has taken in response to dioxin levels in salmon fished in the Baltic Sea. Slovakia and Poland raised concerns about the rules on the carry-over of agricultural stocks on enlargement, which are designed to prevent speculation but which they consider to be over-bureaucratic. In response to a request from Denmark and Austria, the Commission indicated that it would bring forward a proposal within the next few weeks on thresholds for the adventitious presence of genetically modified material in seeds.

  Farming
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what extra subsidy schemes severely disadvantaged area farmers may apply for. [169078]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Malden and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) on 17 March 2004,Official Report, column 271W.
  1494W
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what headage of livestock is registered in Cumbria. [169079]

  Alun Michael
  The total livestock figures for Cumbria, according to the latest available census returns, are as follows:

  Number

  Cattle and calves

  446,241

  Pigs

  31,875

  Sheep and lambs

  1,951,139

  Goats

  1,620

  Horses

  5,163

  Deer

  493

  Poultry

  2,392,240

  Source:

  June 2003 Agricultural Census

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms there are in Cumbria [169095]

  Alun Michael
  The number of registered agricultural holdings in Cumbria was 7,969 at the 19 April 2004.

  The number of holdings in Cumbria as at the June 2003 Census was 7,849.

  Source:

  Farm Survey System 19/4/04, June Agricultural Census 2003.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether Cumbrian farmers will be subject to different cross-compliance measures from Scottish farmers. [169097]

  Alun Michael
  Agriculture is a devolved matter, allowing the Scottish Executive to tailor policies where appropriate and permitted under the relevant regulations.

  Currently there are public consultations on possible cross-compliance measures in England and Scotland. Officials continue to work closely in the design and implementation of CAP reform policies, including cross-compliance, to develop complementary measures wherever possible.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether farmers in severely disadvantaged areas in Cumbria will be subject to different cross-compliance measures from farmers not in severely disadvantaged areas in Cumbria. [169098]

  Alun Michael
  Defra launched its consultation on proposed and possible measures for implementation of cross-compliance in England on 29 March 2004. Final decisions on cross-compliance will be taken after careful consideration of responses.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average difference in payments between 2005 and 2013 will be for farmers(a) in severely disadvantaged areas, (b) not in severely disadvantaged areas and (c) in Scotland. [169099]
  1495W
  Alun Michael
  Under the flat-rate system for allocating Single Farm Payment entitlement in England, the mean payment rate within each region will be similar between 2005 and 2013 even though individual payment rates will change during this transition. In Scotland, under the historic approach, both the mean and individual payment rates will change little over time. In both countries, however, some variation may arise from year to year due to movements in the prevailing exchange rate used to convert from euros and different rates of deduction for the national reserve, modulation and financial discipline.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what effect the lower rate severely disadvantaged areas allowance will have on numbers of livestock in Cumbria. [169101]

  Alun Michael
  From 2005 decoupling will break the link between subsidy and production in the UK and cause farmers to reassess their farming operation and production decisions. Decoupling is not affected by the method chosen for allocating entitlement to the Single Farm Payment. The impact of decoupling on production patterns and livestock numbers is very difficult to assess. There are several studies on the Defra website that examine this at the UK level but there are no assessments by county.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what differences in cross-compliance requirements will exist between farms in different regions in England; [168034]

  (2) what differences in cross-compliance requirements will exist between farms in severely disadvantaged areas and non-severely disadvantaged areas. [168035]

  Alun Michael
  Defra launched its consultation on proposed and possible measures for implementation of cross compliance in England on 29 March 2004. Decisions on cross compliance will not be determined until all responses have been considered carefully.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has responded to the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit recommendation that she should designate the sea bass stock for recreational use; and if she will make a statement. [165929]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  "Net Benefits", the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit report giving recommendations for a sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing, was published on 25 March. These recommendations are presented as the basis for Her Majesty's Government, the Devolved Administrations, the fishing industry and all other stakeholders to determine future action. In response, the Fisheries Departments in the UK will engage intensively with stakeholders to develop by the end of 2004 an action plan for change and a timetable for its delivery. Defra has set up a dedicated team to 1496W
  advance this work. The need to balance the needs of the recreational and commercial sectors is one of the many important issues that were identified in the report and will be covered.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many UK fishing vessels will be required to use pingers in gillnet fisheries in areas IV and VII under the provisions of the new Regulation agreed at the Fisheries Council on 22 and 23 March, on the basis of current fishing effort; [168244]

  (2) what proportion of UK fishing effort will be exempt from the pinger requirement on the basis of the exclusion of vessels smaller than 12 metres under the provisions of the new Regulation agreed at the Fisheries Council on 22 and 23 March. [168246]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The new Council Regulation to address cetacean bycatch will require pinger usage on vessels of 12 metres and over in ICES divisions VIId, e,f,g,h and j when using bottom-set gillnets or entangling nets. In ICES Area IV and division IIIa, the pinger requirement will apply to vessels of 12 metres and over using bottom set gillnets or entangling nets where the combination of net lengths used does not exceed 400 metres or where the mesh size used is greater than or equal to 220mm. The data are not available to isolate definitively the number of vessels falling into the latter categories; it is only possible to identify the total number of vessels of 12 metres and over using bottom set gillnets and entangling nets in the areas concerned. On this basis, and using 2003 fishing data, the number of UK vessels required to use pingers would be 63.

  Bearing in mind the same caveats, the proportion of UK fishing effort (i.e. days at sea) using bottom set-nets and entangling nets exempt from the pinger requirement would be approximately 80 per cent. It should be noted, however, that this calculation does not take account of the length of net deployed by those covered by the pinger requirements which is a significant factor affecting bycatch rates.

  Hops
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what definition her Department uses of(a) hedgerow hops and (b) standard hops under the new single payment regime. [168147]

  Alun Michael
  For the purposes of the Single Payment, no distinction is drawn between different types of hops.

  Orchards
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what definition her Department uses of an orchard; [168145]

  (2) at what tree density her Department defines woodland as an orchard. [168146]

  Alun Michael
  There is no general definition of an orchard. Under present arrangements, densities above
  1497W
  50 trees per hectare have been regarded as ineligible for the purposes of claiming CAP subsidies and this is likely to continue in respect of the Single Payment.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government will take to protect old varieties of apples if traditional orchards do not qualify for half subsidy. [168149]

  Alun Michael
  Old varieties of apple are protected in the National Fruit Collection and the conservation of traditional orchards is funded through the Countryside Stewardship Scheme.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which EU member states subsidise orchards. [168150]

  Alun Michael
  There is no provision within the Common Agriculture Policy for subsidies to orchards. However, member states may, in certain circumstances, allow the forage area within grazed orchards to be used in support of a Single Payment Scheme claim and make payments under rural development and conservation measures.

  Rats
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government are taking to control the rat population. [169892]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 puts the responsibility for the enforcement and monitoring of rodent control with local authorities. Water companies, like other owners and occupiers of land, have a duty of carrying out the necessary control measures when ordered to do so by local authorities.

  Should local authorities fail to discharge their responsibilities under the 1949 Act, Defra has certain default powers to initiate action, and has oversight of the water companies who undertake control of infestations in sewers and water supplies. The Department of Health is responsible for advising on the health aspects of infestations. Our Departments liaise closely to ensure co-ordinated Government action is taken as necessary.

  The Government take this matter seriously. Defra, along with the Department of Health, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Local Government Association (representing the local authorities), Water UK (representing the water companies), Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and Central Science Laboratory, participate in the National Working Group on Rats in Sewers. The aim of the group is the development of an ongoing co-ordinated rodent control strategy.

  Defra is also undertaking a research and development programme, to develop or encourage the development of cost-effective, humane and environmentally acceptable methods of managing rat populations. This is due to be completed in March 2007. The Department also monitors the level of commensal rodent presence through the English House Condition Surveys, undertaken by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  1498W
  This is the only large-scale random survey of commensal rodent presence.

  A rat control technical advice leaflet and a range of others on similar topics are available from the mammal and bird licensing and advice pages of the Defra website (these are located at: www.defra.gov.uk/wildlifecountryside/vertebrates) and from Defra's National Wildlife Management Team.

  Tenancy Reform
  Mr. Drew
  Te ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on recent discussions with the Association of Chief Estates Surveyors and Property Managers in Local Government, with specific reference to tenancy reform and estate disposal and restructuring. [169741]

  Alun Michael
  As part of the Government response to the report of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, my noble Friend the Lord Whitty met representatives of the Association of Chief Estate Surveyors and Property Managers in local government on 7 April together with representatives from the Local Government Association and farming organisations, to discuss county farms.

  The Government value the contribution that the county farm system makes to the tenanted farming sector and the opportunities it provides for new entrants to pursue a career in agriculture. The Government share the concerns of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group about the potential adverse impact that continuing sales of statutory smallholdings might have in the longer term.

  The meeting of 7 April discussed a number of issues stemming from the report of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group. This included the regulatory framework under which local authorities provide for statutory smallholdings and the way in which local authorities manage their county farm estates. The meeting also considered the way forward for county farms and how best to maintain a modern and efficient service for the future.

  Veal Crates
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has made to the European Commission on the use and regulation of veal crates; and if she will make a statement. [169748]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have not made any recent representations on veal crates. In the UK there has been a unilateral ban on the use of close-confinement veal crate systems since 1990. The EU banned new veal crate systems from 1994. Systems existing before that date were granted a transitional period that permitted their use until 2006. From 2006 all such systems will be banned throughout the EU.

TREASURY

  National Statistics
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many suicides were recorded in the UK in each of the last 10 years for(a) children and (b) adults. [169895]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 5 May 2004:

  The most recently available information is for 2002. In routine statistics, ONS defines suicides as deaths from suicide and deaths from "injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted". In adults it is likely that most of these latter deaths are cases where the harm is self-inflicted but there was insufficient evidence to prove that the deceased deliberately intended to kill themselves so the Coroner returns an open verdict. This may not be the case in children, however, where open verdicts may not relate to self-inflicted injury. Therefore, figures for suicide and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted are given separately in the attached table for the calendar years 1993 to 2002.

  Note that, for this purpose, children have been classified as persons aged under 15, with adults aged 15 and over. This is to achieve consistency with previous published analysis.1

  1Brock A and Griffiths C. Trends in suicide by method in England and Wales, 1979 to 2001. Health Statistics Quarterly 20 (2003), 7–18.

  Number of deaths from suicide1and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted,2in (a) children3and (b) adults4—United Kingdom, 1993 to 20025

  Children3

  Adults4

  Calendar year

  Suicide1

  Undetermined injury2

  Suicide1

  Undetermined injury2

  1993

  14

  36

  4,449

  1,815

  1994

  13

  26

  4,368

  1,722

  1995

  10

  22

  4,305

  1,802

  1996

  6

  25

  4,160

  1,691

  1997

  7

  28

  4,136

  1,822

  1998

  6

  19

  4,383

  1,774

  1999

  5

  17

  4,443

  1,751

  Total number of conceptions, and number terminated by abortion, by month of conception for women of all ages England and Wales, 1997 to 2001.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Month of conception

  Total conceptions

  Conceptions terminated by abortion

  Total conceptions

  Conceptions terminated by abortion

  Total conceptions

  Conceptions terminated by abortion

  January

  68,474

  15,090

  70,830

  15,996

  66,243

  14,756

  February

  59,661

  12,703

  60,239

  13,597

  58,867

  13,142

  March

  65,927

  13,651

  65,469

  14,302

  66,405

  14,853

  April

  64,721

  14,318

  63,996

  14,997

  63,504

  14,813

  May

  68,598

  15,204

  66,065

  14,974

  63,658

  14,400

  June

  65,226

  13,617

  65,889

  14,755

  63,287

  14,572

  July

  67,517

  14,127

  67,162

  15,069

  65,316

  14,596

  August

  66,731

  13,543

  66,897

  14,261

  64,831

  14,003

  1500W

  Number of deaths from suicide1and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted,2in (a) children3and (b) adults4—United Kingdom, 1993 to 20025

  Children3

  Adults4

  Calender year

  Suicide1

  Undertermined injury2

  Suicide1

  Undertermined injury2

  2000

  9

  21

  4,282

  1,673

  2001

  7

  12

  4,006

  1,725

  2002

  8

  16

  4,059

  1,664

  1Deaths with a verdict of suicide were defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes E950–E959 for the years 1993 to 2000 for England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and for 1993 to 1999 for Scotland, and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes X60–X84 for the years 2001 and 2002 for England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and for 2000 to 2002 for Scotland (which also includes Y87.0).

  2Deaths with a verdict of injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted were defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes E980–E989 for the years 1993 to 1999 for Scotland and for the years 1993 to 2000 for Northern Ireland, and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes Y10-Y34 for the years 2000 to 2002 for Scotland (which also includes Y87.2), and the years 2001 to 2002 for Northern Ireland. Data for England and Wales were defined using ICD-9 E980–E989 excluding E988.8 and ICD-10 Y10–Y34 excluding Y33.9 where the Coroner's verdict was pending.

  3Children were classified as persons aged under 15 to be consistent with previous analysis.6

  4Adults were classified as persons aged 15 and over to be consistent with previous analysis.6

  5Data for England and Wales are for deaths occurring per calendar year. Data for Scotland and Northern Ireland are for deaths registered per calendar year.

  6Brock A and Griffiths C. Trends in suicide by method in England and Wales, 1979 to 2001. Health Statistics Quarterly 20 (2003), 7–18.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many conceptions resulted in termination in each year since 1997, broken down by month; and if he will make a statement. [170092]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Amess, dated 5 May 2004:

  The most recent year for which figures are available is 2001.

  The total number of monthly conceptions and conceptions terminated by abortion for women of all ages, in England and Wales, 1997 to 2001 are given in the attached table.
  1501W

  Total number of conceptions, and number terminated by abortion, by month of conception for women of all ages England and Wales, 1997 to 2001.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Month of conception

  Total conceptions

  Conceptions terminated by abortion

  Total conceptions

  Conceptions terminated by abortion

  Total conceptions

  Conceptions terminated by abortion

  September

  64,943

  13,250

  66,692

  14,223

  63,865

  14,278

  October

  70,393

  14,971

  69,075

  15,106

  65,797

  14,566

  November

  66,952

  14,016

  65,145

  14,007

  65,106

  14,343

  December

  71,218

  16,011

  69,520

  16,094

  67,085

  16,267

  Total

  800,361

  170,501

  796,979

  177,381

  773,964

  174,589

  2000

  20011

  Month of conception

  Total conceptions

  Conceptions terminated by abortion

  Total conceptions

  Conceptions terminated by abortion

  January

  66,116

  15,183

  67,873

  15,794

  February

  61,406

  13,927

  58,089

  13,665

  March

  65,566

  15,157

  63,188

  14,867

  April

  61,101

  13,991

  59,642

  14,067

  May

  64,791

  15,181

  65,256

  15,773

  June

  62,811

  14,606

  62,501

  14,835

  July

  61,893

  13,617

  62,104

  13,831

  August

  65,458

  14,308

  65,339

  15,067

  September

  62,641

  13,918

  61,812

  13,763

  October

  65,011

  14,431

  66,363

  15,031

  November

  64,044

  14,704

  64,595

  14,840

  December

  66,117

  15,339

  66,669

  15,302

  Total

  766,955

  174,362

  763,431

  176,835

  1Provisional.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Child Tax Credit
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in the Huntingdon constituency are in receipt of child tax credit. [170849]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on 15 March 2004, Official Report, column 98W.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Oldham West and Royton have received child tax credit. [170900]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on 15 March 2004,Official Report, column 98W.

  Citizen Information Project
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress on(a) the Citizen Information Project and (b) the objectives of the UK Population Register. [170336]

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

  Letter from Dennis Roberts to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 5 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on progress on the Citizen Information Project and the objectives of the UK Population Register. I am replying in his absence. (170336)

  The objective of the Citizen Information Project (CIP) is to put in place a common government infrastructure to enable the sharing of basic contact information (name, address, date and place of birth, sex, date of death (where relevant)) about citizens.
  1502W
  This should lead to improved accuracy of the information held, more effective and efficient delivery of public services, and greater convenience and empowerment for citizens across the lifetime of their dealings with the state. It should also improve the base of statistical information underpinning the development and implementation of government policy.

  CIP is being managed by the General Register Office, part of the Office for National Statistics. It is being taken forward as a staged project, subject to regular Ministerial review. A feasibility study was completed in 2003, and approval to proceed to the next stage of work (project definition) was announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 6 January 2004. In the project definition phase we will explore a range of options for delivering the project's aims, taking account of ongoing developments in related areas of work, including in particular the Identity Cards programme being led by the Home Office.

  Departmental Procurement
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the(a) crockery, (b) cutlery and (c) glassware procured by his Department over the last five years is of British manufacture. [170810]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury's catering service has been contracted out for several years and the cutlery, crockery and glassware used in providing that service has been procured by the suppliers of that service.

  Employment
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job vacancies there were in the Huntingdon constituency in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [170855]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jonathan Djanogly, dated 5 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about job vacancies in Huntingdon parliamentary constituency.

  According to Jobcentre Plus administrative records the number of unfilled vacancies in the Huntingdon travel-to-work area was 866 on average during 1997. This represents only a proportion of all the vacancies available, as not all vacancies are notified to Jobcentres.

  Jobcentre vacancy statistics were withdrawn from National Statistics in September 2001 as a result of distortions to the data, which occurred following the introduction of new administrative procedures by Jobcentre Plus. Comparable figures for vacancies in 2003 are therefore unavailable.
  1503W
  Results from the ONS Vacancy Survey were released as National Statistics from July 2003, but are not available for local areas.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the(a) change and (b) percentage change was in full-time permanent jobs in Wirral, South from 1997 to 31 December 2003; [170302]

  (2) how many new jobs have been created in Wirral, South since 1997. [170303]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Ben Chapman, dated 5 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about full-time jobs and jobs created in Wirral South. (170302, 170303)

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

  The following table shows the information requested, relating to all jobs and full-time jobs, in Wirral South, for 1997 and the latest year available, 2002. No information is available about whether the jobs were permanent.

  Number of full-time employees and total number of employees1in Wirral South parliamentary constituency: 1997 and 2002

  Number, percentage

  Number of employees

  Full-time

  Total

  1997

  16,000

  22,700

  2002

  16,500

  23,800

  Change from 1997 to 2002

  Absolute

  500

  1,100

  Percentage

  3.0

  4.9

  1Employee jobs only, not self-employed jobs.

  Source:

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

  Gift Aid
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 23 April 2004,Official Report, column 686W, on gift aid, what assessment he has made of the effect of the abolition of gift aid claims on day memberships on donations to charities. [170046]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 30 March 2004,Official Report, column 1351 W, and 23 April 2004, Official Report, column 686W, and the answer my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave him on 4 March 2004, Official Report, column 1042.

  In last year's pre-Budget report, the Chancellor announced changes to the Gift Aid rules which aim to maintain the principles of Gift Aid as a scheme designed to encourage donations to charity.

  The Inland Revenue is consulting closely with affected charities in the heritage and conservation sectors on how this may best be achieved, and to ensure that there are no unintended side-effects.
  1504W
  These so-called "Day Membership" schemes do not generate additional donations, but merely reclassify admission fees as donations on which Gift Aid is then claimed. The changes are therefore not expected to reduce the total amount received from individuals by these charities in donations and admission fees, although the gift aid tax relief from the Government would no longer be claimable.

  Household Debt/Income
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average(a) household debt per annum and (b) household monthly income in each year since 1997 in Greater London, broken down by borough. [170494]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 5 May 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on average household debt per annum, and average household monthly income for the boroughs of Greater London. (170494)

  The Office for National Statistics does not compile estimates of household debt below the UK level. Similarly estimates of quarterly household income are only available at the UK level. No estimates of monthly income are compiled.

  ONS has published gross disposable household income (GDHI) at current prices at the NUTS1,2 and 3 sub-national geographies. An explanation of how boroughs fit into these geographies is provided in the attached annex. These estimates were last published on 26 March 2002 and are presented in the table below. This data set runs from 1995 to 1999 and is consistent with the 2001 National Accounts. The estimates are available at. http:// www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/article.asp?ID=128&Pos=2&Col Rank=l&Rank=224

  Gross disposable household income per year NUTS1 and NUTS2 areas in London, 1997–99

  £ per head

  Area

  1997

  1998

  1999

  London

  11,485

  11,811

  12,207

  Inner London

  12,089

  12,363

  12,935

  Outer London

  11,110

  11,467

  11,748

  At the NUTS3 geographic level, data was only of sufficient quality for ONS to publish estimates of household income on a three year average basis. These are presented as indices relative to the UK average.

  Index1of gross disposable household income (GDHI) per year NUTS 1, NUTS2 and NUTS3 areas in London, 1997–99

  £ per capita (average over whole period)

  Area

  GDHI Index

  London

  121

  Inner London

  127

  Inner London—East

  106

  Inner London—West

  164

  Outer London

  117

  Outer London—East and North East

  112

  Outer London—South

  120

  Outer London—West and North West

  119

  1Index value is 100 for the UK as a whole.

  1505W

  Annex

  NUTS-3

  LAU 1 level/Boroughs

  Inner London—West

  Camden, City of London, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth, Westminster.

  Inner London—East

  Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Lambeth, Newham, Southwark, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets.

  Outer London—East and North East

  Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Enfield, Greenwich, Havering, Redbridge, Waltham Forest.

  Outer London—South

  Bromley, Croydon, Kingston upon Thames, Merton, Sutton.

  Outer London—West and North West

  Barnet, Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Richmond upon Thames.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many senior citizens in Wirral, South qualified for the 10p rate of income tax in each year since its introduction.[170275]

  Ruth Kelly
  All income taxpayers benefit from the 10p starting rate. The Survey of Personal Incomes estimates there were around 10,000 state retirement pension age taxpayers in the Wirral South constituency in 2000–01 and 2001–02. Figures for 1999–2000 are currently not available.

  IT Equipment (Tax Exemption)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses in the Huntingdon constituency have benefited from 100 per cent. tax exemption for the purchase of computer and internet equipment. [170843]

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses in Oldham West and Royton have benefited from the 100 per cent. tax exemption for the purchase of computer and internet equipment. [170901]

  Ruth Kelly
  We regret that the information is not available to estimate the number of businesses in a given constituency which have benefited from the 100 per cent. first year capital allowances for the purchase of information and communication equipment.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses in Wirral, South have benefited from the 100 per cent. tax exemption for the purchase of computer and internet equipment. [170301]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested is not available.

  Job Creation (Huntingdon)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many jobs have been created in the Huntingdon constituency since 1997; [170850]
  1506W
  (2) What the (a) change and (b) percentage change was in full-time permanent jobs in the Huntingdon constituency from 1997 to 31 December 2003. [170851]

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

  Letter from Dennis Roberts to Mr. Jonathan Djanogly, dated 5 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about full-time jobs and jobs created in Huntingdon. I am replying in his absence.

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

  The attached table shows the information requested, relating to all jobs and full-time jobs, in Huntingdon, for 1997 and the latest year available, 2002. No information is available about whether the jobs were permanent.

  Number of full-time employees and total number of employees1in Huntingdon parliamentary constituency: 1997 and 2002

  Full-time

  Total

  Number of employees

  1997

  36,900

  50,000

  2002

  36,900

  52,500

  Change from 1997 to 2002

  Absolute

  0

  2,500

  Percentage

  0.0

  5.0

  1Employee jobs only not self-employed jobs.

  Source:

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

  Ministerial Meetings
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the official meetings he has had with the Mayor of London since July 2000 and (b) the dates and subject of each meeting. [170570]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: The Chancellor has had no official meetings with the Mayor since July 2000.

  Mr. B. Bentley (Child Benefit)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long it took to finalise the claim for child benefit submitted by Mr. B. Bentley of Quigley Street, Birkenhead; and if he will make a statement on his policy of transferring child benefit to grandparents when they become the main carer of the child. [170656]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: The Inland Revenue is statutorily debarred from disclosing information relating to the affairs of individuals. Exemption 15 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

  The rules governing the transfer of child benefit from one person to an other are contained in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Where a

  1507W
  child's parent voluntarily relinquishes entitlement to child benefit in favour of the child's grandparent, the grandparent will be entitled from the day following the last day the benefit was paid to the parent.

  National Minimum Wage
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many young people aged 16 or 17 he expects will be entitled to the national minimum wage in(a) Greater London, (b) each London borough and (c) the United Kingdom in 2004–05. [170495]

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

  Letter from Dennis Roberts to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 5 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about national minimum wage. I am replying in his absence. (170495)

  Information about entitlement to the national minimum wage is not available. However, estimates for the number of employees aged 16 and 17 from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) provide an upper limit for the number of people emitted to the national minimum wage.

  The table below gives estimates of the number of employees aged 16 and 17 in the United Kingdom and in Greater London for the three month period ending February 2004. They include a small, but not measured, number of people enrolled on apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship schemes who are not entitled to the minimum wage.

  Ordinary written questions tabled

  Answered within a working week1

  Names day questions tabled

  Answered on the nominated day

  2002–03

  November 2002

  203

  158

  67

  54

  December 2002

  168

  138

  108

  73

  January 2003

  476

  360

  62

  45

  February 2003

  295

  210

  58

  47

  March 2003

  442

  363

  43

  31

  April 2003

  277

  176

  52

  29

  May 2003

  298

  246

  37

  24

  June 2003

  340

  248

  58

  35

  July 2003

  253

  164

  31

  20

  August 2003

  0

  0

  0

  0

  September 2003

  181

  139

  39

  30

  October 2003

  253

  205

  40

  32

  November 2003

  160

  143

  25

  18

  Total

  3,346

  2,550

  620

  438

  2003–04

  November 2003

  53

  50

  7

  7

  December 2003

  245

  205

  60

  52

  January 2004

  304

  253

  43

  27

  February 2004

  252

  201

  46

  37

  March 2004

  346

  267

  102

  55

  April 2004

  139

  102

  19

  10

  Total

  1,339

  1,078

  277

  188

  1The Treasury's database records whether ordinary written questions are answered within a working week rather than five sitting days. Which can be several days longer.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to question 163123 tabled on 18 March, on meetings with the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority. [170870]

  Mr. Boateng
  I did so on 28 April 2004,Official Report, column 1114W.
  1508W

  Number of employees aged 16 and 17 in the United Kingdom and in Greater London

  Three month period ending February 2004 Employees aged:

  Area

  16 and 17

  16

  17

  United Kingdom

  602,000

  227,000

  375,000

  Greater London

  34,000

  11,000

  23,000

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  As with any statistical sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability and the sample size is too small to provide comparable estimates for London Boroughs with any reliability.

  Parliamentary Questions
  John Thurso
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many(a) Ordinary Written and (b) Named Day Questions his Department received in (i) the 2002–03 and (ii) this parliamentary session up to the most recent date for which figures are available, broken down by month; [170764]

  (2) what proportion of (a) Ordinary Written Questions to his Department were answered within five sitting days of tabling and (b) Questions for a Named Day received a substantive answer on that day in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) this parliamentary session up to the most recent date for which figures are available, broken down by month. [170765]

  John Healey
  The information is given in the following table:

  Pensions
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to the Exchequer would be under its proposed reform of pension taxation of imposing no lifetime saving allowance on pension savings in 2006–07 and each of the subsequent three years. [170235]
  1509W
  Ruth Kelly
  There would be a cost attached to having no lifetime allowance under the proposed simplified pension regime. The size of this cost depends upon behavioural effects and any estimate of cost would inevitably be very broad-brush. However, given the potential additional pension savings from those in the top 1 per cent. of the earnings distribution, the cost to the Exchequer could be up to several hundred million pounds over this period.

  Public Spending
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he expects to meet his target of having achieved a modest surplus across the current economic cycle ending in fiscal year 2005–06. [171292]

  Ruth Kelly
  The UK public finances are underpinned by two fiscal rules: the sustainable investment rule and the golden rule. The golden rule states that over the economic cycle, the Government will borrow only to invest and not to fund current spending. Progress against the rule is measured by the average annual surplus on the current budget measured as a ratio to GDP over the economic cycle.

  The average surplus on the current budget between 1999–2000, which is the Government's provisional judgment of the start of the current cycle, and 2005–06 when the Government project the economy will return to trend, as stated in the Budget 2004 (HC 301), table 2.6 page 34, is 0.1 per cent. of GDP. On this basis, the Government are on track to meet the golden rule.

  Small Businesses (Shrewsbury)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many small businesses re-registered for VAT in Shrewsbury and Atcham in each year since 1997; [170636]

  (2) how many new VAT registrations of small companies there were in Shrewsbury and Atcham in each year since 1997. [170637]

  John Healey
  Statistics published by the Small Business Service for total VAT registrations for the Shrewsbury and Atcham area from 1997 are shown in the following table:

  New registrations

  Total registrations1

  1997

  270

  2,975

  1998

  270

  3,015

  1999

  250

  3,050

  2000

  270

  3,070

  2001

  265

  3,090

  2002

  290

  3,130

  2003

  n/a

  3,185

  1Start of year.

  However, total VAT registration data do not capture all business start-up activity. Businesses are unlikely to register if they fall below the compulsory VAT registration threshold, which has risen in each year since 1997. Similarly, businesses that de-register will not necessarily have closed. There were only 1.8 million out of 3.8 million enterprises registered for VAT at the start of 2002.
  1510W

  Tourism (Wirral)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed in tourism-related jobs in Wirral, South on the latest date for which figures are available. [170304]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Ben Chapman, dated 5 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about tourism-related jobs in Wirral South. (170304)

  The latest available data, from the 2002 Annual Business Inquiry, shows that the total number of jobs in tourism related industries in Wirral South was 2,100. This total is obtained by combining figures for those working in the following industries, as identified by Standard Industrial Classification 2003:

  hotels

  restaurants

  bars

  activities of travel agencies

  library, archives museums etc

  sporting activities

  other recreational activities.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of unemployment was in each year since 1997 in Wirral, South. [170276]

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

  Letter from Dennis Roberts to Ben Chapman, dated 5 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about unemployment. I am replying in his absence. (170276)

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

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

  The table below gives the annual average number of JSA claimants for the Wirral South constituency for each year since 1997.

  Annual average number of JSA claimants Wirral South constituency, 1997–2004

  Number of claimants

  1997

  1,860

  1998

  1,433

  1999

  1,335

  2000

  1,229

  2001

  1,008

  2002

  923

  2003

  848

  1511W
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the unemployment figures were in the constituency of Edmonton for(a) 1991–92, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2003. [169302]

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

  Letter from Dennis Roberts to Mr. Andrew Love, dated 5 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about unemployment. I am replying in his absence. (169302)

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

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

  The table below gives the annual average number of JSA claimants for the Edmonton constituency for the years 1991, 1992 and 2001 to 2003.

  Annual average number of JSA claimants, Edmonton constituency, years as shown

  Number of claimants

  1991

  4,118

  1992

  5,468

  2001

  2,284

  2002

  2,185

  2003

  2,301

TRANSPORT

  Buses
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will allocate additional funds to local authorities to introduce free bus travel for(a) those of pensionable age and (b) those with disabilities; [169786]

  (2) if he will allocate additional funds to local authorities to enable subsidised fares for (a) those of pensionable age and (b) those with disabilities to be made available at all times. [169787]

  Mr. McNulty
  We have no plans to allocate additional funds to local authorities to introduce free bus travel, or to extend subsidised fares, for pensioners and disabled people to all times.

  The current statutory minimum requirement for concessionary travel in England introduced in 2001 ensures half fares for pensioners and disabled people on local buses for journeys made after 9 30 am. From April 2003, we extended concessionary travel schemes to men aged 60 to 64, bringing them into line with women of the same age. We provided funding to Focal authorities to cover the additional costs of implementing these initiatives. Local authorities may make more generous provision, including free travel on buses and trains, or for concessionary travel at all times, at their discretion in the light of their own financial priorities and local circumstances. Also, from May 2003, we have provided
  1512W
  additional funding to enable half-fares to be made available on many scheduled long-distance coach services for people aged 60 years and over and for disabled people.

  Off-shore Wind Farms
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the extent of interference with maritime navigational instruments from wind farms placed in UK territorial waters. [168262]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government will examine the extent of interference with maritime navigational instruments caused by wind farms. We will want to draw on international experience, for instance in Denmark, and also learn as much as possible from our own installations. We will use the offshore wind farm at North Hoyle as a test facility to provide input into the study. We intend to begin work as soon as possible so that the results are known before any consents to build wind farms under the second round of offshore development.

  Piracy
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to issue an advice leaflet to the crews of British flagged ships concerning how best to defend themselves against piracy. [170055]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Detailed guidance already exists in the form of Marine Guidance Note MGN 241 (M)—(Measures to Counter Piracy, Armed Robbery and other acts of Violence against Merchant Shipping), published in November 2002 and issued to over 16,000 UK mariners. There are no immediate plans to re-issue the guidance but this is being kept under review.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he has taken to help British flagged ships that sail(a) near Malaysia and (b) through the Straits of Malacca defend themselves against piracy. [170056]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my earlier answer given today (ref 170055). The Department for Transport has issued comprehensive guidance to UK mariners regarding the measures that UK flagged vessels should take to defend against acts of piracy while passing through the Malacca Straits. Additionally, the DfT will be represented at the International Maritime Bureau's (IMB) Piracy conference being held in Kuala Lumpur at the end of June. We will be highlighting and making a persuasive case for a more robust and coordinated international effort to crack down on piracy in the world's main hotspots such as the Straits of Malacca.

  All British flagged ships are required under the new International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) code to appoint a Ship Security Officer (SSO) and submit a Ship Security Plan (SSP) to the DfT. Officials examine these plans and verify them on board prior to issuing the International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC), if appropriate. SSPs and vessels have to meet UK security standards and the plans contain many elements of good security practice, which help SSOs ensure ships are adequately protected.
  1513W
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents of piracy were reported as having taken place against British vessels in 2003. [170063]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There were 17 incidents of piracy reported by the IMB against British vessels in 2003. This figure includes incidents against vessels flagged in UK and its Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents of piracy were discovered at UK seaports by(a) UK border controls and (b) the Royal Navy in 2003. [170064]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There were no incidents of piracy discovered at UK seaports in 2003 by either UK border controls or the Royal Navy. There were also no piracy related incident reports for the UK, and the IMB annual report confirms that no such incidents were recorded for 2003.

DEFENCE

  Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 1 April 2004,Official Report, column 1604W, on accommodation costs, what the housing needs of the Service personnel living in private rented accommodation are; [169472]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 1 April 2004, Official Report, column 1604W, on accommodation costs, what plans he has to provide sufficient service accommodation in the Greater Portsmouth area to obviate the need for service personnel to rent in the private sector. [169444]

  Mr. Caplin
  All families housed in Substitute Service Family Accommodation (SSFA) in the Portsmouth area at present are in need of 4-bedroomed houses. Two PFI projects will provide a total of 148 x 4-bedroomed houses at the former HMS Daedalus site in Gosport, which should eliminate the need for privately rented accommodation, even allowing for an expected increase in Portsmouth-based personnel. The new properties are scheduled to be constructed within about 18 months.

  In addition, there is currently a need for Substitute Single Service Accommodation in Portsmouth, for personnel temporarily displaced by Project EMMA, a major project replacing 1960s tower blocks with new accommodation, projected to provide a suitable level of accommodation for many years to come. A Portsmouth Single Living Accommodation Study is on-going, designed to assess the single accommodation need in the Portsmouth area and ensure that best use is made of existing accommodation.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the benefits of full-sized aircraft carriers. [161245]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Strategic Defence Review concluded that the current Invincible class carriers should be replaced by two larger, more versatile, aircraft carriers capable of carrying a more powerful embarked air 1514W
  component. The carriers would have broad utility across a range of roles, consistent with the focus of maritime forces towards rapid deployment operations and wider power projection.

  Size is not, however, an end in itself and the Department has not sought to fix the dimensions of these new aircraft carriers during the Assessment Phase of the CVF project. Parameters such as the ships size will instead reflect the design needed to meet the level of capability sought. It is to be expected that the design, and therefore size, of the ships will evolve as the Department seeks to balance, in conjunction with industry, overall performance, time and cost as part of normal Assessment Phase activity.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the BAE Systems and Thales partnership is still his preferred prime contractor for the aircraft carrier programme; what alternatives are under consideration; when the appointment will be confirmed; and if he will make a statement. [166013]

  Mr. Ingram
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence Announced on 30 January 2003, the best means of delivering the carrier programme is via an alliance approach involving BAE Systems, Thales UK and the Ministry of Defence.

  The alliance approach remains the best way to deliver the programme within the time and cost parameters, and we continue to engage in discussions on the alliancing strategy to determine roles and responsibilities. Ministers are currently considering proposals on the overall CVF programme, the alliance strategy, and on when to proceed to the Demonstration and Manufacture phases.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to ensure that(a) the entire value of future aircraft carriers will be spent in the UK and (b) in the event that overseas suppliers are necessary, 100 per cent. of the value of such contracts will be offset by purchases from the UK. [167641]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is intended that the Future Aircraft Carriers will be acquired in accordance with defence industrial policy and also to provide the armed forces with the equipment they require at the best value for money for the taxpayer. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 January 2003,Official Report, column 404W to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle).

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that the final assembly and integration of modules of all future aircraft carriers will be at a UK shipyard; and if he will list the UK shipyards which have this capability; [167642]

  (2) if he will list those companies which he has assessed as having the capability to construct the principal modules which will make up future aircraft carriers. [167643]

  Mr. Ingram
  In accordance with Government policy for the construction of Royal Navy warships, the Future Aircraft Carriers will be built in UK shipyards. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 30 January 2003, a combination of four UK shipyards potentially offer the best way forward to build and
  1515W
  assemble the vessels: BAE Systems Naval Ships at Govan, Vosper Thornycroft at Portsmouth, Swan Hunter on Tyneside and Babcock BES at Rosyth. We have not, however, ruled out the involvement of other yards and facilities depending on the build strategy that is selected. Final decisions on the potential four shipyards and other manufacturing; facilities will be made based on achieving value for money while taking due cognisance of capability, capacity and resources across the UK shipbuilding industry

  Airfield Support Services Project
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which officials involved in he preparation of Fire Study 2000 have also been involved with(a) the preparation of the Public Sector Comparator and (b) the evaluation of bids for the Airfield Support Services Project. [167250]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Airfield Support Services Project (ASSP) is seeking to achieve the most viable and cost effective solution for the provision of airfield support and wider fire services without compromising operational effectiveness and/or safety. Separately, Fire Study 2000 (FS 2000) investigated the potential for improved delivery of Defence Fire Services (DFS). The results of this study have been used to inform the ASSP Public Sector Comparator (PSC).

  No official involved in the preparation of the FS 2000 report was a member of the ASSP PSC Working Group. Officials from the Defence Fire Service Headquarters did provide advice to the ASSP Team on what FS 2000 savings were appropriate to the ASSP and an official who was a member of the FS 2000 Project Team also provided subject matter advice for the technical evaluation of industry proposals.

  Armoured Mobility
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve armoured mobility for(a) the Army and (b) the Royal Marines; and if he will make a statement. [165384]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are a number of ongoing projects that improve the armoured mobility of the Army and Royal Marines.

  We have procured appliqué mine blast and ballistic protection kits for the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) (CVR(T)) vehicles. We have also procured eight Supacat TEMPEST Mine Protected Vehicles (MPV) to deliver a Counter Mine Vehicle (CMV) capability. Both of these capabilities; are deployed on current operations.

  We are procuring 401 Future Command and Liaison Vehicle (FCLV) with an approved In Service Date (ISD) of November 2007 to provide protected tactical mobility for Combat, Combat Support and Combat Service Support Arms within the Army.

  There are three vehicle programmes that will significantly improve the capability of the Royal Engineers' armoured mobility. We are procuring 33 TITAN vehicles to deliver the Armoured Vehicle Launcher Bridge (AVLB) capability and 33 TROJAN vehicles to deliver the Armoured Vehicle Royal
  1516W
  Engineer (AVRE) heavy breaching capability; both have approved ISDs of December 2006. Additionally, we are procuring 65 TERRIER vehicles to deliver the Armoured Engineer Tractor (AET) capability with an approved ISD of December 2008.

  A preliminary assessment has been made of the options to meet the Armoured Battlegroup Support Vehicle (ABSV) requirement in our armoured units. We are also studying the concept of a Warrior Mid Life Improvement programme. No final decisions have yet been made on these programmes and the ISDs will not be set until they pass their main gates.

  We are currently completing the Concept Phase for the procurement of a family of network-enabled, medium-weight armoured vehicles to deliver the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) capability. The In-Service Date for FRES will not be endorsed until the main investment decision, but on current plans, the intention is to introduce early variants into service around the end of the decade.

  For the Royal Marines we are in the process of delivering 108 All Terrain Vehicle (Protected) VIKING vehicles, which includes Troop Carrying, Command and Repair and Recovery Vehicles.

  Asset Tracking
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in acquiring an asset tracking system for the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [165564]

  Mr. Ingram
  Asset tracking comprises a family of capabilities which allows visibility and management of inventory. Of these capabilities, Consignment Tracking and the Management of the Deployed Inventory were consistently identified as areas requiring attention from Lessons Identified from Operation Telic. After urgent investigation, we identified areas for investment and a number of recommendations to further improve the Ministry of Defence's consignment tracking capability, including that TAV (-) should be retained and formally supported. These recommendations are currently being considered.

  Additionally, two other projects which contribute to Asset Tracking, Management of the Joint Deployed Inventory (MJDI) and Management of Materiel in Transit (MMiT) have been initiated.

  Atomic Co-ordinating Offices
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed in the Atomic Coordinating Offices in London and Washington; and what their civil service grades are. [166579]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are three staff employed in the Atomic Control Office, London and five staff in the Atomic Co-ordinating Office, Washington as follows:Atomic Control Office London
  1 x Band D, 2 x Band E2.
  Atomic Co-ordinating Office Washington
  1 x B1, 1 x B2, 1 x Band D, 1 x El, 1 x Locally Employed Civilian.
  1517W
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the annual running costs are of the Atomic Co-ordinating Offices in London and Washington; and out of which budget they are taken. [166580]

  Mr. Ingram
  The annual running costs of the Atomic Control Office, London and the Atomic Co-ordinating Office, Washington are some £70,000 and £400,000 respectively. The costs of the London office fall to the Chief Scientific Adviser's Top Level Budget (TLB); the costs of the Washington office fall to the Centre TLB.

  Defence Budgets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is of the(a) defence procurement budget and (b) military research and development budget for each year from 1996–97 to 2005–06 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [156607]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence's cash outturn on defence equipment procurement for 1996–97 to 2000–01 is published in the United Kingdom Defence Statistics 2001 and 2002.

  £ million

  Resource

  Capital

  Defence Procurement Agency (DPA)

  Major Customers' Research Budget(MCRB)

  Defence Procurement Agency

  Major Customers' Research Budget

  2001–02 outturn

  2,710

  414

  4,356

  0

  2002–03 (estimated outturn)1

  5,033

  417

  4,385

  1

  2003–04 (plans)

  1,968

  449

  4,617

  0

  2004–05 (plans)

  2,262

  454

  4,920

  0

  2005–06 (plans)

  2,221

  465

  5,656

  0

  1The figures up to 2002–03 have not been restated to reflect a change in the Treasury Discount Rate and are therefore not directly comparable to the plan years.

  The figures are presented differently in the Government's Expenditure Plans and Defence Statistics. The Government's Expenditure Plans define "procurement" expenditure as Defence Procurement Agency spending plus the Major Customers' Research Budget. The Major Customers' Research Budget represents money allocated for non-nuclear research, which forms part of the MOD's total net Research and Development expenditure. Defence Statistics shows total MOD net expenditure on Research and Development.

  Defence Fire Service
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed in the Defence Fire Service; and how many of these have indicated a willingness to become sponsored reserves in the event that the public sector comparator solution is selected for the Airfield Support Services Project. [167645]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are approximately 1,300 personnel based in the United Kingdom who are employed by the Defence Fire Service. A survey carried out in spring 2002 for Fire Study 2000, which has been used to inform the Public Sector Comparator for the Airfield Support Services Project, identified 420 fire fighters willing to become sponsored reserves.
  1518W
  Our cash outturn for research and development for 1996–97 is published in "UK Defence Statistics 2001". Outturn figures for 1997–98 to 2001–02 are in UK Defence Statistics 2003. R&D outturn for 2002–03, on the same basis, is published in the MOD "Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03". R&D plans for 2003–04 and 2004–05 are published in the "Office of Science and Technology Forward Look 2003". Figures are not yet available in this form for 2005–06.

  £ million

  Equipment procurement

  Total MOD Research and Development (R&D)1

  1996–97

  9,494

  2,144

  1997–98

  9,373

  2,314

  1998–99

  10,281

  2,140

  1999–2000

  10,094

  2,272

  2000–01

  10,408

  2,240

  2001–02

  —

  2,057

  2002–03

  —

  2,734

  2003–04

  —

  2,579

  2004–05

  —

  2,629

  1From 2000–01 these figures are calculated on a resource basis.

  Details of the MOD's "procurement" resource and capital outturn for the years 2001–02 to 2002–03 and plans from 2003–04 to 2005–06 are set out in The Government's Expenditure Plans for the MOD 2003–2004 to 2005–2006 (Cm 5912):

  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the position of each Eurofighter Typhoon partner in respect of when they will be ordering their Tranche II aircraft. [170108]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 30 April 2004]: It is not appropriate to comment on the position of our partner Eurofighter Typhoon nations in respect of their orders for Tranche II aircraft. The international arrangements for the project require that all four nations must agree the order before it can be placed on their behalf by the responsible NATO procurement agency.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his partners in the Eurofighter Typhoon Project about the UK being allocated the building of the 18 aircraft destined for Austria; and if he will make statement. [170109]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 30 April 2004]: The Secretary of State for Defence has had no discussions with partners in the Eurofighter Typhoon project about the United Kingdom being allocated the building of the 18 aircraft destine, for Austria. Austria has ordered 18 Typhoons from Eurofighter GmbH and the role of national contractors in their construction has yet to be decided.
  1519W

  France Campaign 1940
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to commemorate the 64th anniversary of the contribution made by the 51st Highland Division who were captured at St. Valery-en-Caux. [169918]

  Mr. Caplin
  The valour of the 51st (Highland) Division at St. Valery-en-Caux is legendary. It is, however, Government policy to sponsor commemorations only for Jubilees of the Sovereign's Accession and 50th and 60th anniversaries and centennials of events of the greatest national significance. Nevertheless it is open to the successor units of those which fought at St. Valery to organise their own commemorations if they wish.

  HMS Vanguard
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what safeguards will be in place for citizens of the Devonport area when the nuclear reactor of HMS Vanguard is fired up after her Long Overhaul Period (Refit). [166902]

  Mr. Ingram
  The nuclear reactor of HMS Vanguard is currently undergoing detailed inspection, revalidation and overhaul as part of the refit, and will be subject to rigorous testing prior to being operated. These measures are taken to ensure the safety of the reactor, and hence the safety of the workforce and members of the public. They are identical to those applied to all nuclear reactor systems towards the end of a refit where the submarine has been refuelled. All aspects of this work are subject to detailed safety justification and Devonport Management Limited (DML), as the nuclear site licensee, requires the prior approval of the UK's independent regulators, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, for all nuclear operations at Devonport Royal Dockyard. In addition, authorisation to operate refuelled nuclear submarines requires the approval of the Ministry of Defence's internal regulator. In the highly unlikely event of a nuclear incident, Devonport is covered by a site emergency plan, which is jointly prepared by DML and MOD. There is also an off-site emergency plan for which Plymouth City council is responsible.

  Iraq
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is of the number of unexploded cluster bombs and bomblets that remain in Iraq having been dropped by British military operations. [166415]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date, around 930,000 individual items of unexploded ordnance have been cleared from the Multi-National Division (South East) Area of Operations. This figure includes around 5,800 items of submunitions, however this category is not broken down further into type of submunition or county of origin. Therefore it is not possible to quantify the number of unexploded cluster bombs and bomblets that remain in Iraq having been dropped by British military operations.
  1520W
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department has implemented to(a) trace and (b) recover munitions containing depleted uranium used by British forces in Iraq. [166871]

  Mr. Ingram
  An initial survey of the region has been started to mark known sites for clearance. Surface lying depleted uranium (DU) fragments are being removed from the battlefield as they are discovered.

  The Ministry of Defence has provided the coordinates of targets attacked by British forces using DU ammunition to the United Nations Environment Programme which will assess DU levels as part of its post-conflict environmental survey of Iraq when the security situation allows.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that all investigations into alleged abuses by Coalition Forces in Iraq are conducted by a body that is(a) competent, (b) impartial and (c) independent. [166936]

  Mr. Ingram
  Formal investigations into alleged cases of misconduct by members of the UK Armed Forces are conducted by the Royal Military Police who are competent, impartial and, in exercising their constabulary powers, fully independent of the Army chain of command.

  Investigations into allegations against members of other Coalition partners' Armed Forces are a matter for them to comment on.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the findings of all investigations into alleged abuses by United Kingdom forces in Iraq are made public. [166937]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 45W to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Mr. Price).

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements exist for the sharing of information between United States military forces and(a) British forces and (b) the United Kingdom diplomatic representation to the Coalition Provisional Authority respectively, in respect of Iraqi civilians (i) killed and (ii) injured by military activities by US forces in Iraq. [167403]

  Mr. Ingram
  We liaise closely with all our partners in the International Coalition on a range of issues but casualties allegedly caused by other than UK Forces are a matter for the relevant partner nation to comment on.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what attempts have been made to ascertain the number of Iraqi civilians(a) killed and (b) injured by British forces in Iraq since 1 May 2003. [167421]

  Mr. Ingram
  UK units report all confirmed fatalities of which they are aware arising from incidents in which they were involved and we have put in place a mechanism for central collation of unit reports. However, it is not always possible to confirm whether fatalities or injuries have occurred during a particular incident. For example, in some incidents we believe Iraqi dead and/or injured may have been taken away by their compatriots before UK forces could investigate. In other incidents UK forces have been forced to withdraw
  1521W
  before any Iraqi fatalities and/or injuries could be confirmed. Consequently, we have no reliable means of assessing the completeness of the information.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many students in full-time employment have interrupted their studies to serve with reserve forces in Iraq and the adjoining theatre over the last 24 months; [169225]

  (2) how many students in full-time employment now serving with reserve forces in Iraq and the adjoining theatre interrupted their studies in order to do so. [169224]

  Mr. Caplin
  Generally, it is Ministry of Defence policy to grant an exemption from or deferral of call-out for reservists who are in full-time education if such an exemption or deferral is sought. Therefore, the overall number of individuals who have served or who are serving in Iraq and who were in full time education prior to call-out is thought to be very small. Precise figures are not held centrally, as this would require a trawl of computer records and an examination of individual personnel files to establish the information requested. This could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Kinnegar Army Base
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Kinnegar Army base at Holywood, County Down. [170031]

  Mr. Ingram
  Kinnegar is listed in the security normalisation annex of the Joint Declaration, as one of the locations where, in the context of a peaceful society, the regular garrison in Northern Ireland might be based.

  Manning Control Points
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used to identify soldiers for manning control; whether this information is readily available to soldiers on a regular basis as well as on entrance of contract; and if he will make a statement. [167841]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Notice Paper, a statutory document given to all new recruits, contains details of the soldier's Terms of Service and it states that a soldier's future employability will be reviewed after six, nine and 12 years' Colour service and that he or she may be discharged if their service is no longer required.

  Commanding Officers are notified of those soldiers who will reach a Manning Control Point (MCP) within the next 15–18 months. At that stage, the soldier's career and employment potential will be reviewed taking into consideration: length of service, rank, trade and long term potential. Following this review, a soldier being considered for discharge by MCP is sent a letter, giving a minimum of 12 months notice. At this point, he or she is asked to sign a certificate to agree that they have been warned about their potential discharge.

  Individual cases are then considered by the Army Personnel Centre against the prevailing manning situation within their Career Employment Group. Thus individuals are assessed for quality and employability against their peers and the required structure for their trade.

  Merlin Helicopter
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Merlin helicopters have been lost since their original delivery; for what reasons; and what plans he has for their replacement. [167644]

  Mr. Ingram
  Two Royal Navy Merlin Mk 1 aircraft have been lost since the Merlin entered service with the United Kingdom armed forces. The first crashed into the sea off north-west Scotland in October 2000 following the loss of both the main and tail rotor control. The second crashed at RNAS Culdrose on 30 March this year. The cause of this accident is still being investigated

  These helicopters will be replaced from the Departmental fleet, which allows for the loss of aircraft in service with front line commands.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the procedure is for acquiring spares for Merlin helicopters; and if he will make a statement. [168561]

  Mr. Ingram
  Merlin helicopter spares are acquired in the same way as those for the majority of other aircraft used by the United Kingdom armed forces. Spares requirements are calculated at regular intervals throughout the year based on activity levels, deployment patterns and mission types. Predicted requirements are then compared with current spares holdings and current orders from industry and the difference is the future requirement. The process of spares ordering and distribution is managed by the Defence Logistics Organisation working closely with the relevant front line command to meet current and predicated requirements.

  MOD Land
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account he takes when releasing Ministry of Defence land for development of the needs of(a) his Department and (b) the local community; and if he will make a statement. [169175]

  Mr. Caplin
  The interests of the Ministry of Defence are protected by ensuring that the disposal of surplus land and buildings (which are released only where there is no alternative defence use) is conducted in accordance with "Government Accounting" regulations—normally by means of sale on, the open market with the benefit of outline planning permission or a planning brief. This necessarily involves consultation with the local planning authority and ensures best value for taxpayers generally.

  In the case of the closure of major facilities, it is normal practice for officials in Defence Estates to work closely with the relevant local authorities, and to liaise with recognised local community bodies as part of the disposal process. We seek to take local aspirations into account wherever Possible.

  Naval Engineers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason his Department is replacing the post of engineering artificer in the Navy with the post of engineering technician; and what difference there will be in the qualifications required for the new post. [166689]
  1523W
  Mr. Ingram
  A review of the structure, organisation and training of both the Warfare and Engineering Branches of the Royal Navy is currently taking place. It is probable that the term engineering; technician will be adopted for all members of the engineering branch below the rank of Commissioned Officer, replacing the artificer and mechanic titles currently in use. The title artificer no longer adequately describes the professional role that those personnel undertake in the modern Navy. Replacing them with engineering technicians will align the Navy with the standards of competence published by the Engineering Council United Kingdom, and refresh the image of this key role against increasingly competitive recruitment market forces.

  No change is anticipated to the entry qualifications for Naval Engineering Technicians Men and women will be able to join with a range of academic qualifications that span those for today's mechanics and artificers. Once they have completed basic training, engineering technicians will progress according to their abilities, with the most able continuing to have opportunities for promotion to the officer corps.

  Naval Procurement
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of through-life programmes to accompany future naval procurements. [166536]

  Mr. Ingram
  Each project is required to maintain a Through Life Management Plan which explains how the particular equipment will be supported through to the end of its life. This is subject to regular scrutiny throughout the equipment's life and in particular, as part of the Main Gate business case submission.

  The support through life for major future naval equipments is assessed against the Warship Support Agency's Maritime Support Strategy element. This forms part of the Defence Logistics Organisation sponsored Support Solutions Envelope.

  Nimrod MRA4
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft programme; and when a decision will be made on approval for the production phase of aircraft numbers four to 18.[166901]

  Mr. Ingram
  The agreement reached with BAE Systems in February 2003, embodied in a formal contract amendment on 23 February this year, has put the Nimrod MRA4 programme on a much sounder footing for the future. Under the restructured contract, design and development and manufacture have been separated as far as possible, to ensure that technology is adequately de-risked before making further

  NATO Rank codes and UK Service Designations

  Royal Navy1

  Royal Marines1

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  OF 10

  Admiral of the Fleet

  —

  Field Marshal

  Marshal of RAF

  OF 9

  Admiral

  General

  General

  Air Chief Marshal

  OF 8

  Vice Admiral

  Lieutenant General

  Lieutenant General

  Air Marshal

  OF 7

  Rear Admiral

  Major General

  Major General

  Air Vice Marshal

  OF 6

  Commodore

  Brigadier

  Brigadier

  Air Commodore

  OF 5

  Captain

  Colonel

  Colonel

  Group Captain

  OF 4

  Commander

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Wing Commander

  1524W
  commitment to production price and schedule. Whilst risks and challenges remain, the development and production of the first three Nimrod MRA4 aircraft to be used in the flight trials programme is well under way and we are making good joint progress towards first flight this summer. Long lead item work continues on aircraft 4–18; a decision to exercise the option in the contract for full production is dependent on design maturity and price negotiation and is expected next year.

  Officer Numbers
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment and (b) strength of all ranks above OF 2 in the (i) Royal Navy and (ii) RAF was on the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [161059]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 1 January 2004, the trained strength and requirement for all ranks above OF 2 in the Naval Service and RAF are shown as follows. The tables show figures for each equivalent NATO rank and these are set out as follows:

  Naval Service1

  Rank

  Trained strength

  Requirement

  Surplus/Deficit

  OF 9

  4

  3

  +1

  OF 8

  7

  10

  -3

  OF 7

  30

  28

  +2

  OF 6

  99

  91

  +8

  OF 5

  280

  270

  2—

  OF 4

  1,080

  1,200

  -120

  OF 3

  2,460

  2,530

  -70

  All OF 3 and above

  3,950

  4,130

  -180

  1Naval service figures include Royal Navy and Royal Marines.

  2Less than five.

  RAF

  Rank (1)

  Trained strength

  Requirement

  Surplus/Deficit

  OF 6 to OF 91

  120

  100

  +20

  OF 5

  320

  250

  +70

  OF 4

  1,150

  940

  +210

  OF 3

  2,550

  2,430

  +120

  (2)

  Specialists2

  390

  400

  -20

  (3)

  All OF 3 and above

  4,530

  4,130

  +400

  1The Trained Manpower Requirement (TMR03) does not break down the requirement by individual rank for OF 6 (Air Cdre) and above.

  2Specialists are excluded from (1) and shown separately as a total of all OF 3s and above. Due to the way Specialists are posted, a rank breakdown is not readily available. Specialists are in the following branches: Medical, Med Spt, Dental, Chaplains, Legal and Princess Mary's Royal Air Force Nursing Service.

  Note:

  All figures over 100 and any derived from these figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  1525W

  NATO Rank codes and UK Service Designations

  Royal Navy1

  Royal Marines1

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  OF 3

  Lieutenant Commander

  Major

  Major

  Squadron Leader

  OF 2

  Lieutenant

  Captain

  Captain

  Flight Lieutenant

  OF 1

  Sub-Lieutenant

  Lieutenant/2nd Lieutenant

  Lieutenant/2nd Lieutenant

  Flying Officer/Pilot Officer

  OF(D)

  Midshipman

  —

  Officer Designate

  Officer Designate

  1The Royal Navy and the Royal Marines together make up the Naval Service.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the differences between strength and establishment of officers in the Army. [161060]

  Mr. Ingram
  A comparison between current liability and current strength of Army officers is shown as follows:

  Rank

  Liability

  Strength1

  General/Lieutenant General

  7

  17

  Major General

  27

  43

  Brigadier

  175

  184

  Colonel

  546

  561

  Lieutenant Colonel

  1,579

  1,713

  Major

  4,540

  4,723

  Captain

  4,850

  4,465

  Lieutenant/2nd Lieutenant

  1,876

  1,680

  1As at January 2004.

  The difference at Major and above is largely because the liability consists only of Army posts. Tri-Service rotational and competition posts and certain international appointments, for example to NATO, are not tied to British Army officers and therefore do not form part of the liability. In practice the Army does not carry a substantial surplus of officers, although there is provision for small margin to cover those in training and on resettlement prior to retirement.

  The difference at Captain and below is due to a combination of factors. In recent years, the output from the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, which is affected by both input and throughput, has not achieved the target. The number of junior officers is therefore lower than the requirement. The RMAS output target is now being met. Some posts are rank-ranged. In these instances the liability is shown against the lower rank although the incumbent may be of a higher rank. Officers holding temporary acting rank are shown against the strength at the higher paid rank.

  Overseas Military Students
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sums of money involved in training of military students for foreign Governments were(a) paid, (b) waived and (c) written off in each of the last three years; and which countries were involved. [168618]

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

  Parachute Regiment
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of premature voluntary release applications(a) received and (b) approved in the last 12 months in (i) 1 Para, (ii) 2 Para and (iii) 3 Para; and if he will make a statement. [169306]
  1526W
  Mr. Caplin
  The number of Premature Voluntary Release (PVR) applications received from soldiers in the Parachute Regiment between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004 was:1st Battalion Parachute Regiment—702nd Battalion Parachute Regiment—653rd Battalion Parachute Regiment—60

  All soldiers have a right to PVR once they have served the minimum engagement period, and provided they give appropriate notice. Information is not held centrally on the proportion of these applications that were subsequently withdrawn, but across the Army withdrawals amounted to some 38 per cent. of the total in the same period.

  PVR information for officers is not currently broken down by unit, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the strength of the Parachute Regiment at(a) 1 April 2003 and (b) 1 April 2004 and the estimated strength for 1 April 2005; and if he will make a statement. [169307]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 1 April 2004, the strength of the Parachute Regiment was 1,740. The corresponding figure on 1 April 2003 was 1,795. These figures exclude personnel from other units temporarily attached to the Parachute Regiment.

  Projected strength for 1 April 2005 is not expected to differ significantly from the current level.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the provision of free postage for troop parcels for forces serving in Iraq. [167998]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to my written ministerial statement of 27 February 2004,Official Report, column 70WS, and subsequent answers of 5 March 2004, Official Report, column 1155W, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), and 1 April 2004, Official Report, column 1605W, to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson).

  A series of reviews were undertaken by the Ministry of Defence between July 2003 and February 2004 which concluded that the scheme should be extended to April 2004 when it was judged that the complete Operational Welfare Package and Expeditionary Forces Institute support would be in place. There are no further plans to review the provision of free postal packets to the Iraq theatre of operations.

  I should also point out that the British Forces Post Office rate for a 2 kg postal packet to Iraq (equivalent to

  1527W
  the Royal Mail First Class Inland Rate) was £7.23. From 1 April 2004 the Royal Mail Group has reduced this charge to £6.89 and the British Forces Post Office has reduced its charge in line with this.

  Radar
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he proposes to the system of radar cover; and if he will make a statement. [165059]

  Mr. Ingram
  Options for future air defence radar cover are currently being considered. No decision has been taken.

  RAF (Medical Personnel)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vacancies exist for medical personnel at(a) RAF Leeming, (b) RAF Linton on Ouse, (c) RAF Dishforth and (d) Alanbrooke Barracks, broken down by (i) service, (ii) rank and (iii) specialisation; and if he will make a statement on his plans to fill those vacancies. [169990]

  Mr. Caplin
  The following vacancies exist for medical personnel, broken down as requested:

  Vacancies—4

  Base—RAF Leeming

  Service—RAF

  Rank—2 aircraftsmen, 2 civilians (1 part-time)

  Specialisation—2 medical assistants, (1 physiotherapist, 1 part-time nurse)

  AAC Dishforth and Alanbrooke Barracks, both Army bases, have no service vacancies. A military medical post at Flight Lieutenant level is currently vacant at RAF Linton on Ouse but is being filled by a civilian GP.

  With the exception of one gapped medical assistant post, which can be managed within existing resources, action is in hand to fill all of these vacancies.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medical personnel are based at(a) RAF Leuchars and (b) RAF Coningsby, broken down by (i) service, (ii) rank and (iii) specialisation [169994]

  Mr. Caplin
  The following tables show the numbers of medical personnel based at RAF Leuchars and RAF Coningsby broken down by rank and specialisation. All are RAF personnel.

  RAF Leuchars

  Numbers of Medical Personnel

  Rank

  Specialisation

  1

  Squadron Leador

  Medical Officer

  1

  Squadron Leador

  Medical Officer (Full Time Reserve Soldier)

  1

  Civilian

  Civilian Medical Practitioner

  1

  Flight sergeant

  Medical Admin FS

  1

  Sergeant

  Medical Administration

  2

  Corporal

  Medical Administration

  10

  Aircraftsman

  Medical Assistant

  1

  Sergeant

  Pharmacy Technician

  2

  Sergeant

  Staff Nurse Registered General Nurse

  11

  Flight Lieutenant

  Medical Support Officer 612 Squadron

  1

  Sergeant

  Medical Administration

  1From July 2004

  1528W

  RAF Coningsby

  Numbers of Medical Personnel

  Rank

  Specialisation

  1

  Wing Commander

  Medical Officer

  1

  Warrant Officer

  Medical Administration

  1

  Sergeant

  Medical Administration

  2

  Corporal

  Medical Administration

  5

  Aircraftsman

  Medical Administration

  11

  Corporal

  Staff Nurse Registered General Nurse

  22

  Civilian

  Physiotherapist Civilian

  1

  Civilian

  Nurse Civilian

  1Currently deployed

  2One post covered by two part time personnel

  RAF Sealand
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact on the local community of the loss of jobs at RAF Sealand in Flintshire: and what further plans he has for RAF Sealand. [169773]

  Mr. Ingram
  RAF Sealand was covered by a study into the future location of the RAF's Air Combat Service Support Units and other minor units. As I announced in my Written Ministerial Statement of 23 April 2004, (Official Report), column 3OWS, I am inclined, subject to Trade Union consultation, to accept an option which would see the closure of RAF Sealand by April 2006. This would result in the loss of around 100 civilian jobs. The Defence Aviation Repair Agency which is located on the same site would not be affected. Any land that becomes surplus to requirements will be handled in accordance with usual procedures.

  I would expect the impact on the local community of the closure of RAF Sealand to be negligible as Flintshire has an expanding economy and a low unemployment rate.

  Royal Gibraltar Regiment
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's intentions are on the funding for the Royal Gibraltar Regiment; and if he will make a statement. [168851]

  Mr. Ingram
  A study into the missions, tasks and formation of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment is on-going. No final decisions have yet been taken. This study is part of the Ministry of Defence routine reviews/studies process. HQ British Forces Gibraltar and the Commanding Officer of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment are working closely to determine the most effective outcome.

  Second Hand Equipment
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the second hand equipment sold to each country in the last year for which records are available. [167069]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 23 February 2004,Official Report, columns 14–15W to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen).
  1529W

  Special Forces
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the(a) SAS and (b) SBS have (i) applied and (ii) been accepted for premature voluntary retirement in each month of the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [167852]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is the Ministry of Defence's practice not to release information regarding United Kingdom Special Forces. I am therefore withholding details under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Trident Nuclear Warhead
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the latest safe in-service date for the British Trident nuclear warhead is; and if he will make a statement.[170331]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Strategic Defence Review noted the need to ensure that Trident could remain an effective deterrent for up to 30 years. The Ministry of Defence sponsors a comprehensive science and technology programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment to ensure that the Trident warhead remains both safe and reliable throughout its service life.

  Typhoon
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to announce the second tranche of orders for Typhoon. [165459]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 February 2004,Official Report, column 1634W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).

  United States Laboratories (UK Research)
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work is carried out by(a) the Sandia National Laboratories, (b) the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories and (c) the Los Alamos National Laboratories on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. [166583]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence and the Atomic Weapons Establishment maintain collaborative contact with Sandia National Laboratories, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, and the Los Alamos National Laboratories under the 1958 UK/US Mutual Defence Agreement (Cm 537, as amended).

  This contact, which may include the placement of specific work packages with the US facilities by or on behalf of HMG, principally relates to the stockpile stewardship programmes that ensure the continued safety and reliability of the UK's nuclear weapons stockpile. It would be contrary to the interests of national security to give further details of such activities, which I am therefore withholding under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security, and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  US Forces (Service Charges)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total income received for services rendered to the US visiting forces and their agencies was in 2003. [167744]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total receipts from invoices raised for services rendered to the United States visiting force and their agencies in the calendar year 2003 is £204.2 million. Most of this is in the form of direct reimbursement for the US visiting force works programme and civilian staff costs.

  US Global Posture Realignment Process
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received regarding changes in numbers or strength of US forces based in the UK as part of the US Global Posture Realignment process; and if he will make a statement. [169135]

  Mr. Ingram
  Her Majesty's Government have been consulted but it would be inappropriate to speculate on the impact that the United States Global Posture Realignment process may have on US forces based in the United Kingdom until the US Government make an announcement.

  US/UK Mutual Defence Agreement
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British personnel are stationed in the United States as part of the 1958 US/UK Mutual Defence Agreement; and where they are located. [166578]

  Mr. Ingram
  Numbers of United Kingdom personnel stationed in the United States under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement vary in line with operational and other requirements. The current number is five, all am the Atomic Co-ordinating Office in the British embassy in Washington DC (this figure includes a Locally Employed Civilian).

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel are employed in the renegotiation of the 1958 US/UK Mutual Defence Agreement; and what the estimated cost is of renegotiation. [166581]

  Mr. Ingram
  A number of Ministry of Defence personnel are involved in renegotiating the 1958 US/UK Mutual Defence Agreement as part of their normal duties, and FCO personnel will be involved in its ratification. The colt of the renegotiation is primarily the cost of this staff effort. Since this task represents only a small proportion of individuals' workloads, it is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of the collective cost of their time.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the exchange of information and visit reports that have occurred in the last 12 months as part of the 1958 US/UK Mutual Defence Agreement. [166584]
  1531W
  Mr. Ingram
  In the last 12 months, exchanges of information by visit and reports have occurred under the following subject headings: Radiochemistry; Safety and Security; Safety Assessment Methodology; Intelligence; Non-Proliferation arid Arms Control Technology; Enhanced Surveillance; Facilities and Infrastructure; Senior Visits; the Atomic Weapons Establishment Support Contract; and Miscellaneous.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people visited(a) the Pantex Plant in America, (b) the Sandia National Laboratories, (c) the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, (d) the Los Alamos National Laboratories, (e) the Nevada test site and (f) the Rocky Flats plant on behalf of the United Kingdom Government in the last 12 months as part of the 1958 US/UK Mutual Defence Agreement. [166585]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the 12 months to 31 March 2004, there was a total of 190 visits by UK personnel to these sites under the 1958 US/UK Mutual Defence Agreement. The number of people visiting was as follows:

  (a) the Pantex Plant: 41

  (b) the Sandia National Laboratories: 205

  (c) the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories: 116

  (d) the Los Alamos National Laboratories: 219

  (e) the Nevada test site: 11

  (f) the Rocky Flats Plant: 0.

  These figures include personnel making more than one visit, and visits to several sites during a single trip.

  Warships
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) of 25 March 2004,Official Report, column 949W, and 14 April 2004, Official Report, column 16W, on warships, what reasons the refit of HMS Triumph was not programmed to begin on the expiry of the reactor certificate. [167942]

  Mr. Ingram
  The submarine refit programme is driven by the need to maintain the required number of submarines available to the fleet, while taking account of the requirement for submarines to refuel periodically. This programme is delivered in the most cost effective manner through a single stream rebelling capability at Devonport for Swiftsure and Trafalgar Class submarines (SSNs), of which HMS Triumph is one. Therefore, on occasion, a submarine may be berthed alongside for a period of time prior to the start of its refit. This is the case with HMS Triumph, whose refit will begin in summer 2005, once the SSN refitting and refuelling dock is vacated by HMS Talent. This programme accords with the Ministry of Defence's long term plan, which will continue to deliver sufficient submarines at high readiness to maintain defence outputs.
  1532W

  Wind Farms
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department issues guidelines in relation to planning applications for wind farms to be located within a certain distance of military installations involving radar. [169488]

  Mr. Caplin
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Asthma
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to encourage local health and social care groups to adopt asthma as a particular interest among long-term conditions; and if he will make a statement. [169659]

  Angela Smith
  One of the key actions set out in Priorities for Action 2003–04 required Local Health and Social Care Groups (LHSCGs) to develop at least one project to increase the capacity of primary care to address chronic diseases, such as diabetes, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), asthma and coronary heart disease, in the primary care setting to reduce pressure on the hospital sector.

  It is a matter for the Groups, based on their assessment of local need, to decide which of these chronic diseases is a priority in their local area. To date none of the projects undertaken focus specifically on asthma but some of the projects covering respiratory illnesses in the widest sense should bring some benefits to asthma sufferers.

  I should also add that the Department is currently working to put in place a strategy to identify how the full spectrum of respiratory service provision, including asthma care in the primary care setting, should be configured up to 2010.

  Autism
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research he has collated on the earlier diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorders in the Province; and if he will make a statement. [167718]

  Angela Smith
  There has been no DHSSPS funded research undertaken in Northern Ireland on the earlier diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorders.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases have been dealt with by the Child Support Agency in Northern Ireland in each of the last two years. [170481]

  Mr. Spellar
  Over the last two years the Child Support Agency's (CSA) live load has consisted of 33,000 cases, representing some 50,000 children.

  In order to maintain the existing caseload and administer new applications in each of the last two years

  1533W
  the CSA has carried out the following activities:

  Case activities

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Applications cleared (in year)

  8,703

  8,184

  Change of circumstances processed

  13,972

  12,803

  Account inquiries handled

  52,424

  51,410

  Cases requiring debt management

  12,129

  13,594

  The total child support maintenance collected by the Agency in each of the last two years is as follows:

  Collections(£)

  2002–03

  12,520,000

  2003–04

  12,645,000

  Conservation Area Status
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what effect the designation of conservation area status has upon the protection of trees within its boundaries. [170033]

  Angela Smith
  The effect of conservation area status is to prohibit the cutting down, topping, lopping, uprooting, wilful damage or wilful destruction of those trees in the conservation area that are not already protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Anyone carrying out such works is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £30,000, or on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

  A person may, however, serve notice upon the Department of the intended works and may carry out such works, either with the consent of the Department or after a period of six weeks from the date of the notice but before the expiry of a period of two years from that date. The Department may also decide, however, to protect the tree or trees in question by applying a Tree Preservation Order before the expiry of the six-week period.

  District Policing Partnerships
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Dungannon and South Tyrone District policing partnership will be established. [170480]

  Mr. Pearson
  Dungannon and South Tyrone District Policing Partnership (DPP) is the only one of the 26 DPPs yet to be established.

  After very careful consideration over a period of time, and following consultation with the Northern Ireland Policing Board, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, decided to issue on 2 February a letter of direction to the Mayor of Dungannon and South Tyrone borough council requiring the council to establish its DPP. This action was in accordance with Section 15 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, which sets out the steps to be taken when a council has failed to set up a DPP. The letter that issued on 2 February gave the council two calendar months to reconsider its position.
  1534W
  The council have sought and obtained two extensions to this deadline and the new deadline for the council to comply with the direction is 28 May. It is hoped that the council will use this further period to reconsider their position and establish the DPP.

  Dublin/Monaghan Bombings
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has studied in relation to the extent of British security service involvement in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974. [169075]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As part of the Government's endeavours to helping Mr. Justice Barron's inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings as fully as possible, my predecessors and I examined all the potentially relevant information uncovered in the files of this Department and other Departments and agencies. There was no information to indicate that the British security forces were involved in the bombings, or that they were aware of the perpetrators' plans in advance. Had such information been uncovered, it would have been passed to Mr. Justice Barron.

  Environment and Heritage Service
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on how the Environment and Heritage Service, Northern Ireland has fulfilled its obligations towards The Priory, In Holywood, County Down. [170034]

  Angela Smith
  Holywood Priory was scheduled for protection in 1932 under the 1926 Ancient Monuments Act and was re-scheduled in 1986 under the Historic Monuments Act (NI) 1971.

  The Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) has carried out regular inspections of the condition of the Priory. Condition reports have recorded little evidence of deterioration. However, a need to remove some potentially damaging vegetation was identified. North Down Borough Council, the owners responsible for the care of The Priory, have been made aware of this and have removed the vegetation.

  Under Policy BH1 of Planning Policy Statement 6—"The Preservation of Archaeological Remains of Regional Importance and their settings"—EHS has also advised Planning Service on various planning applications in the area which affected this site and/or its setting.

  European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2004 were first made available in the Vote Office. [170247]

  Mr. Spellar
  Copies of the European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2004 were first made available in the Vote Office on 18 March 2004.

  Fair Employment (Complaints)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many formal complaints
  1535W
  alleging breaches of fair employment and equal opportunity legislation have been made to the Office of Industrial Tribunals and the Office of Fair Employment Tribunals in (a) 2002, (b) 2003 and (c) 2004 to date. [170405]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is as follows.

  Number of Complaints

  Complaints registered with Fair Employment Tribunal

  Equal Opportunity complaints registered with Industrial Tribunals

  2002

  481

  1,014

  2003

  466

  942

  2004 (to end of March)

  175

  280

  Free Fares for Senior Citizens
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have used the Free Fares for Senior Citizens scheme on public transport in Northern Ireland since its introduction; and how many people used the previous discounted fares scheme over an equivalent time period leading up to the introduction of the Free Fares for Senior Citizens scheme. [169761]

  Mr. Spellar
  Free travel for Northern Ireland residents aged 65 and over was introduced in October 2001. Translink do not have information about the number of people who have used he scheme since its introduction, but do have records of the number of passenger journeys undertaken. Those records show that 17,620,940 free passenger journeys were undertaken on Ulsterbus and City bus services between October 2001 and April 2004. Figures are not available for Northern Ireland Railways for this period.

  Translink have advised that passenger journey figures are unavailable for half fare concessions prior to October 2001.

  Gastroenteritis Outbreak
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) admissions, (b) operations and (c) other procedures were postponed at each of the hospitals in the province as a result of the April outbreak of gastroenteritis; and if he will make a statement. [169656]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested on admissions, operations and other procedures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  A total of 896 bed days at the Ulster hospital and 149 bed days at the Antrim hospital were lost as a result of the gastroenteritis during April. All elective surgery was cancelled at the Ulster hospital between 6 April and 26 April.

  The impact of a gastroenteritis outbreak on services will depend on many factors including the level of the infection in the community, the proportion of affected staff, the clinical areas involved, the layout of hospital design, and the general pressures experienced by the trust.
  1536W
  The control measures being followed in the Ulster hospital are those recommended in national UK guidelines "Management of hospital outbreaks of gastroenteritis due to small round structures viruses". These include isolation of affected patients and exclusion from work of affected staff members, ward closure to new admissions, enhanced hygiene measures and domestic cleaning, restrictions on visitors, close monitoring of all wards and information and advice to staff, patients and visitors. The current outbreak of the virus is now showing signs of abating, wards are being reopened to patients and elective surgery is again being performed.

  Leggatt Report
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to bring into effect in Northern Ireland the recommendations of the Leggatt Report in the Review of Tribunals. [166138]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Leslie), on 1 April 2004,Official Report, column 1656W.

  Pensions Payment
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the change in numbers of pension payment order books at post offices in Northern Ireland was between 2002 and 2003. [170483]

  Mr. Spellar
  The decrease in numbers of pension books at post offices in Northern Ireland between 2002 and 2003 is 23.000.

  Personal Protection
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to withdraw personal protection from(a) members of the judiciary and (b) others in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [169745]

  Mr. Pearson
  The level of personal protection provided to individuals in Northern Ireland is an operational matter which the Chief Constable keeps under constant review. In line with Part II, Paragraph 4f of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information—"Information whose disclosure could endanger the life or physical safety of any person, or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes"—
  it would be inappropriate to comment further on such issues.

  Police Fund
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the staff and administrative costs associated with the operation of the Police Fund have been in each year since its introduction, broken down by main budget heading. [170219]
  1537W
  Mr. Pearson
  I have been advised by the Police Fund that the establishment and running costs associated with the operation of the Fund from 25 January 2002 to 31 March 2004 are as follows:

  £

  Period from 25 January 2002 to 31 March 2003

  Period from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

  Personnel Costs

  210,563

  251,916

  Accommodation Costs

  13,202

  14,777

  General

  106,351

  58,121

  Administrative Expenses

  Total

  330,116

  324,814

  It should be noted that the figures for 2003–04 are subject to the annual external audit, which will commence on 1 June 2004.

  Police Service
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what legal obstacles prevent formalised police exchanges between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana; and if he will make a statement. [170562]

  Mr. Pearson
  With the coming into force of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (Secondment) (Garda Siochana) Regulations 2004, there is no legal obstacle in the United Kingdom jurisdiction which would prevent police exchanges between the Police Service Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana.

  When I raised the subject at the meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference on 21 April, I was assured that the Irish Government is currently working up reciprocal regulations to support secondments.

  Roads
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the estimated cost is of providing a dual carriageway between the Toome bypass and the City of Londonderry. [170486]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of Roads Service (Dr. Malcolm McKibbin) has written directly to the hon. Gentleman in response to this Question.

  Letter from Dr. McKibbin to Mr. Gregory Campbell, dated 4 May 2004:

  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a Parliamentary Question about the estimated cost of providing a dual carriageway between the recently constructed Toome by-pass and the City of Londonderry. I have been asked to reply as this issue falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of Roads Service.

  The estimated cost of providing a dual 2-lane carriageway road between the end of the Toome by-pass and Londonderry would be in the region of £300 million to £400 million.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the estimated cost is of providing a dual carriageway between the existing dual carriageway on the A26 and Glarryford and Coleraine. [170487]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of Roads Service (Dr. Malcolm McKibbin) has written directly to the hon. Gentleman in response to this Question.
  1538W
  Letter from Dr. McKibbin to Mr. Gregory Campbell, dated I May 2004:

  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a Parliamentary Question regarding the estimated cost of providing a dual carriageway between the existing dual carriageway on the A26 and Glarryford and Coleraine. I have been asked to reply as. this issue falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of Roads Service.

  The estimated cost of providing a dual 2-lane carriageway road with at-grade junctions on the A26 between the end of the existing dual carriageway at Glarryford and Coleraine would be in the region of £130 million to £180 million depending on the standard of the road provided.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether has Department plans to contribute financially to the establishment of the second phase of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber. [167615]

  Mr. Pearson
  There are currently no plans for Northern Ireland Departments to contribute financially to the establishment of the second phase of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber.

  TK-ECC Plant
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the assistance he can give to workers recently made redundant at the TK-ECC plant, Dundonald; and what meetings have been(a) held and (b) arranged with representatives of the workers regarding future employment prospects. [165909]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following meetings with TK-ECC Senior Management on 25 February and 3 March 2004, officials from the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) took the lead in co-ordinating an inter-Departmental Out reach Service at the company's premises at Dundonald from Monday 8 to Friday 12 March. Representatives from DEL, Invest NI, Social Security Agency and the Inland Revenue provided advice and guidance on a wide range of services including referrals to jobs and training opportunities, benefit claims and entitlement, advice on business start-up and entitlement to tax credits.

  The primary objective of the Outreach Service was to secure alternative employment for as many of the work force as possible. In excess of 150 people were subsequently submitted to job vacancies with a further 120 receiving information and advice on training opportunities. In addition, Invest NI entered into discussion with 36 employees, 25 of whom were seeking to start their own business, with a further 11 seeking general business advice and direction. Invest NI also held preliminary discussions with the Managing Director of TK-ECC who was investigating the possibility of a new business venture. To date this has not progressed beyond the preliminary stage.

  UK General Lighthouse Fund
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what discussions he has had with other Government Departments regarding the cessation
  1539W
  of payments from the UK General Lighthouse Fund for the provision of navigational aids in Irish territorial waters; [168239]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Irish Government regarding the cessation of payments from the UK General Lighthouse Fund for the provision of navigational aids in Irish territorial waters. [168240]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The General Lighthouse Fund meets the cost of providing aids to navigation services for the British Isles as a whole, but the Government shares UK shipping industry concerns about the imbalance in the amounts of light dues collected in the UK and in Ireland. Since we reiterated in January our commitment to renegotiate the current level of funding from Ireland there have been further discussions at official level between the Department for Transport and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. and with the Irish Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The Northern Ireland Office will also be involved as the dialogue progresses.

  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the(a) procedure and (b) timescale for filling the vacant post of Chairman of the Ulster-Scots Agency. [170784]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Under the Implementation Bodies Agreement of 8 March 1999 made between the British and Irish Governments, the North South Ministerial Council fill the vacancy left by Lore Laird's resignation as Chairperson of the Ulster Scots Agency.

  During suspension, such decisions are taken by the British and Irish Governments under the Agreement made between the two Governments is on 19 November 2002.

  No timescale for any such appointment has yet been set.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the reasons given by the Chairman of the Ulster-Scots Agency for his resignation. [170785]

  Angela Smith
  In a letter of resignation to the North South Ministerial Council on 23 April, Lord Laird stated that a lack of official support and public funding for the Ulster-Scots Agency were the reasons. This I refute.

  The Budget for the Agency has trebled since 2000 to a current level of £1.7 million which is an 11 per cent. increase on last year's budget. This is within a care and maintenance arrangement as agreed by North South Ministerial Council.

  My Department continues to work closely with the Ulster-Scots Agency in support of their work.

  Youth Football
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial assistance was given to the promotion of youth development programmes in Northern Ireland football during 2003. [165996]
  1540W
  Angela Smith
  The amount of financial assistance that was given to the promotion of youth development programmes in Northern Ireland during 2003 was £903,768. This amount was provided via the Departments of Culture Arts and Leisure, Finance and Personnel, Enterprise Trade and Investment and Social Development. The figures include £804,995 from the Department of Culture Arts and Leisure for the 2003–04 financial year.

  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further developments have been made in relation to the agreement reached regarding the assistance offered to the Irish Football Association to develop football in Northern Ireland. [169934]

  Angela Smith
  Discussions are ongoing between my officials, the Sports Council for Northern Ireland (SCNI), the Irish Football Association (IFA) and the Irish Football League (IFL) about arrangements for the provision of DCAL assistance offered to the IFA to develop football in Northern Ireland. In addition, I have approved the terms of reference for a SCNI-led Soccer Strategy Implementation Group, the membership of which will include senior representatives of the IFA. Steps are also being taken to arrange a first meeting of this group.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to promote youth football in Northern Ireland. [168470]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) has made available, via the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, £1.6 million for the promotion of youth football in Northern Ireland. Under this programme, 25 youth Football Development Centres, based at clubs, have been established across Northern Ireland. In addition, youth football is one of the key components of the soccer strategy initiative.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether measures to promote youth football in Northern Ireland are dependent on the implementation of the soccer strategy. [168472]

  Angela Smith
  Current measures supported by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL), through the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, to promote youth football in Northern Ireland are not dependent on the implementation of the Soccer Strategy. The development of youth football in the future will be closely linked to the successful implementation of the Soccer Strategy process.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-terrorism Legislation
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on 8 March 2004,Official Report, columns 1256–57W, on anti-terrorism legislation, if he will collate information on the religious background of those detained under UK anti-terrorism legislation. [166428]
  1541W
  Mr. Blunkett
  I do not believe that the religion of an individual is relevant to whether or not they may have been involved in terrorism.

  In respect of all detentions under anti-terrorism legislation, there is no requirement for detainees to provide information pertaining to their religion. This data is therefore not collated centrally and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, column 669W, on the Terrorism Act 2000, if he will update the figures. [166813]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Police records show that since 11 September 2001, 562 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 and that 97 of those have been charged with offences under that Act (please note that two persons previously reported as originally charged under the Terrorism Act 2000 had their charges amended during the prosecution process) resulting in 14 convictions.

  53 people have been released directly into the custody of the immigration services. (Please note that the difference of one here is the result of a review, which identified an erroneous earlier report from a Constabulary.) A further 99 of those arrested under the Act have been charged under other legislation.

  280 individuals were released without charge or further sanction. Information on any further action taken is not collated centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he estimates the cost to central Government Departments of the medical inspection of immigrant service is in 2003–04. [156836]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave to him today.

  Brain Fingerprinting
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation he has made of brain fingerprinting technologies that monitor the involuntary electrical waves emitted by the brain. [169294]

  Ms Blears
  None.

  Car Crime
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of remote immobiliser technologies on reducing car crime. [166845]

  Ms Blears
  It is too early to make an assessment because the introduction of these technologies by the industry has been delayed until there is resolution of liability issues.
  1542W
  It is suggested that these legal liabilities include, liability for technology or system malfunction and who would take responsibility for vehicles that are remotely immobilised and subsequently causes an accident.

  Charitable Status
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to withdraw charitable status from groups that are raising money in the UK and channelling it to extremist and terrorist groups in India. [158060]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  This is a matter for the Charity Commission as the Government Department responsible for the regulation of charities in England and Wales. The Director of Operations will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Clamping Companies
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Security Industry Authority to introduce regulations to control the activities of clamping companies. [170964]

  Ms Blears
  On current plans the Security Industry Authority expects to commence regulation of vehicle immobilisers by the end of 2004.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the number of existing home care staff who will require Criminal Records Bureau checks; [166008]

  (2) how many ex sting care home staff had enhanced level Criminal Records Bureau checks processed by 29 February; what percentage this constitutes of the total number of existing care home staff; and if he will make a statement. [166018]

  Ms Blears
  As at 29 February, a total of 85,062 Disclosure applications from existing care home staff had been processed by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). This figure is made up of 80,327 Enhanced Disclosures and 4,735 Standard Disclosures. As at 21 April, the number of applications processed had risen to 105,765 out of a total received of 115,532.

  There are no reliable figures to indicate what percentage of over all existing staff this represents, because initial estimates from the Department of Health were that checks would need to be carried out on 250,000 existing staff. However discussions with the care sector suggest that there is a high turnover of staff in this sector, and as a result the actual figure could be at least 20–40 per cent. lower.

  In September 2003, the Department of Health issued its schedule to employers and owners in the care sector on the reintroduction of the previously postponed checks on existing care home staff. Initially, employers were asked to send application forms to the CRB by 31 December 2003. Because the number of applications received by that date were low and following discussion

  1543W
  between the Criminal Records Bureau, the Home Office and the Department of Health, this date was extended to 29 February 2004.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have(a) one, (b) two, (c) three, (d) four, (e) five and (f) more than five registrations with the Criminal Records Bureau. [167975]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 23 April 2004]: I believe that the question refers to the number of people who have applied for more than one Disclosure from the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). I am unable to provide an answer, because the CRB's computer system does not hold this information centrally.

  Unit

  Description of Contract

  (FSS) Forensic Science Service

  Facilities Management—Lambeth 1/7/02–1/6/05 with an option to extend the contract for a further period of 24 months.

  (UKPA) United Kingdom Passport Agency

  Building Work. Counter/Reception refurbishment in Glasgow.

  (HMPS) Her Majesty's Prison Service

  Cleaning contract at HMP Long Lartin until 2004. Staff mess catering contract at HMP Long Lartin 30/4/01–29/4/04. Catering framework agreement under Phase 2 Project for Staff Messes and Visits Halls. Roofing contract at HMP Parkhurst. Roofing contract at HMP Leicester. Cameron House conversion contract at HMP Norwich. Works contract at HMP Ranby. Works contract at HMP Hindley. Roofing contract at HMP Hindley. Refurbishment contract at HMP Lewes. Installation of call system contract at HMP Exeter.

  (NPD) National Probation Directorate

  Facilities Management Services—National Probation Service (NPS) North Division Estate commencing 1/1/03. Facilities Management NPS West Division Estate commencing 1/4/03. Both contracts fixed for three years with options to extend both by four times, six month periods to a maximum of five years each

  Departmental Staffing
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of his Department's work force are non-civil servants, separately identifying(a) consultants and contractors,

  Agency staff (including non-civil servant inward secondees)

  Total staff

  Percentage

  Immigration and Nationality Department

  1,298

  14,240

  9.1

  United Kingdom Passport Service

  47

  2,627

  1.8

  Centrally managed core Home Office

  300

  4,208

  7.1

  Forensic Science Service

  90

  2,615

  3.4

  Prison Service Agency

  300

  47,427

  0.6

  Note:

  Inward Seconded staff who are civil servants are counted against normal staff counts; staffing returns for the Home Office Annual Report excludes agency staff.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost to his Department of contracted professional services was in each of the last five years. [163633]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 31 March 2004]: The cost for contracted professional services for the Core Home Office in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Custodial Sentences
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women were given a custodial sentence by courts in London in each month since January 2003. [168780]

  Paul Goggins
  Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contracts have been awarded to the company Mitie by his Department since 2000; and what arrangements were put in place for collective bargaining. [166595]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The available information held by the Home Office on the contracts awarded to MITIE since 2000 is as set out in the following table:

  (b) secondees from other Government bodies and(c) temporary agency staff. [163631]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 31 March 2004]: Contributions have been received from areas of the Home Department, including agencies, as follows:

  £

  1999

  15,132,974

  2000

  33,130,017

  2001

  47,177,217

  2002

  58,509,500

  2003

  73,762,761

  1545W
  The Stage 2 RAB Resource DEL for the Home Office over the same period was:

  £

  1999–2000

  7,076,102,000

  2000–01

  8,398,131,000

  2001–02

  10,261,856,000

  2002–03

  11,088,502,000

  2003–04

  11,836,009,000

  Expenditure expressed as a percentage of the Home Office DEL during the last five years was as follows:

  Percentage

  1999–2000

  0.21

  2000–01

  0.39

  2001–02

  0.46

  2002–03

  0.53

  2003–04

  0.63

  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate accounted for around half of the cost for each financial year.

  Drug Rehabilitation Treatment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the waiting times for drug rehabilitation treatment for each drug action team in England were for each year from 1995–96 to 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [163881]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The National Treatment Agency (NTA) has collected information on waiting times for all drug treatment modalities from 2001 for drug action teams. This is available on the NTA's website at http:// www.nta.nhs.uk/programme/performance information popup. htmf#related.

  In December 2001, the NTA developed a programme to tackle growing waiting times, setting targets on the maximum acceptable length of waits. Average waiting times have fallen in all treatment categories from between five to eleven weeks in December 2001, to two to five weeks in October 2003.

  Gloucestershire Probation Board
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the membership of the Gloucestershire Probation Board is; and what the duration of that membership is. [168309]

  Paul Goggins
  There are currently 13 members on the Gloucestershire Probation Board, including the Chief Officer and Chair.

  At present, there are two vacancies on this board. One new member has been selected and is awaiting pre-appointment clearance. The remaining vacancy is for a judicial representative who will be approved by the Department of Constitutional Affairs.
  1546W
  The Board may have a maximum of 15 members, and the term of appointment for all member appointments is three years, with the exception of the Chief Officer who is appointed on a permanent basis.

  Interception of Communications
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many warrants have been authorised for the interception of telephone conversations, e-mails and postal mail in each of the last 10 years. [167078]

  Ms Blears
  The figures for the number of interception warrants issued in the last 10 years are published annually in the Annual Reports of the Interception of Communications Commissioner initially appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and now under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library

  Offender Management
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Chief Executive of the National Offender Management Service to appoint the first Regional Offender Manager for the new service. [168838]

  Paul Goggins
  Advertisements for Regional Offender Manager posts appeared in the media from 18 April. Interviews of candidates will begin in early June as soon as possible after which the first appointments will be made.

  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether regional offender managers will be required to(a) locate prisoners and (b) purchase places for prisoners, as close to their homes as possible. [168783]

  Paul Goggins
  Regional offender managers will assess individual offenders on a case-by-case basis and prescribe interventions appropriate to that offender. Wherever possible, the location of a prisoner's home will be taken into consideration.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Stourbridge on 2 March, reference 158991. [165942]

  Ms Blears
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 31 March 2004,Official Report, column 1419W.

  Parole
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were recalled to custody having been released on home detention curfew in each of the last 12 months. [168025]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of persons recalled to custody having been released on Home Detention Curfew (HOC) in each of the last 12 months is given in the following table.
  1547W
  Reasons for recall include breach of HDC conditions, change of circumstances (for example, where a subject has involuntarily lost their curfew address or has withdrawn consent to be monitored) and being charged with a new offence.

  Numbers recalled from and on home detention curfew England and Wales April 2003 to March 2004

  Recalled

  On HOC

  April 2003

  226

  3,135

  May 2003

  213

  3,112

  June 2003

  196

  3,174

  July 2003

  215

  3,262

  August 2003

  207

  3,772

  September 2003

  272

  3,682

  October 2003

  288

  3,574

  November 2003

  230

  3,613

  December 2003

  272

  3,779

  January 2004

  284

  3,523

  February 2004

  264

  3,444

  March 2004

  259

  3,602

  Policing/Crime Statistics
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much public funding has been spent on CCTV security cameras in Preston since 1997. [169697]

  Ms Blears
  Preston borough council has been allocated a total of £276,228 specifically for CCTV schemes since the introduction of CCTV funding in 1999. This was for two schemes under round two of the initiative.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage change in full-time police officers in Wigan there has been since 1997. [169333]

  Ms Blears
  Information on strength at Basic Command Unit (BCD) level is collected annually and reflects the position at the end of March. Information on BCD strength is only available from 2002.

  Between March 2002 and March 2003 police strength for the Wigan BCU increased by 6.9 per cent. (from 442.5 to March.473.0). The deployment of officers to BCUs is a matter for the Chief Constable (Michael Todd) and within the Wigan BCU deployment of officers is a matter for the Divisional Commander.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much public funding has been spent on CCTV security cameras in Wigan since 1997. [169337]

  Ms Blears
  Since 1997, the Home Office has provided £1,604,450 to Wigan metropolitan borough council for CCTV schemes.

  Prisoners
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many life sentence prisoners were(a) in Category C conditions and (b) in open conditions on (i) 31 March and (ii) 31 March in each of the last five years. [168026]
  1548W
  Paul Goggins
  The number of life sentence prisoners held in(a) Category C prisons and (b) Open prisons on 31 March 2004 and in each of the last five years is given in the table.

  Population of lifers in Category C and open prisons, 31 March

  Category C

  Open

  1999

  767

  314

  2000

  782

  354

  2001

  870

  304

  2002

  884

  375

  2003

  966

  397

  2004

  1,014

  400

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are expected to be released from custody(a)on home detention curfew, (b) on parole and (c) at the end of their sentence in each of the next 12 months. [168029]

  Paul Goggins
  Estimated figures for the number of prisoners expected to be released from custody on(a) home detention curfew (HOC), (b) on parole, and (c) at the end of their sentence, are not available. The numbers released on parole and HDC depend on the size and make-up of the prison population, general policy and individual decisions on early release.

  The number of prisoners released from custody on HDC, recommended for parole, and the total number of discharges in 2002 can be found in tables 10.7, 10.1 and 3.13, 4.11 and 5.8 respectively of the publication 'Prison Statistics England and Wales 2002'. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of prisoners were assessed for basic literacy and numeracy in 2003–04; and what the rates were for each of the last 10 years. [169093]

  Paul Goggins
  All establishments provide an induction programme, screening and initial assessment of each offender's basic skills.

  We are able to provide figures from 2001, but do not hold data for the past 10 years.

  Prisoners' basic skills assessments

  2001–02

  114,831

  2002–03

  118,800

  2003–04

  123,941

  The number of sentenced prisoners received into prisons for the same period (not including recalls, non-criminals or fine defaulters) is:

  Number

  2001–02

  91,978

  2002–03

  94,807

  2003–04

  192,247

  1Final year figures yet to be confirmed

  Information is not collected and held centrally for each individual prisoner. Accordingly it is not possible

  1549W
  to express these figures as a proportion of annual throughput. Assessment figures would also include non-sentenced prisoners.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners aged(a) under 18, (b) 18 to 25, (c) 26 to 35, (d) 36–60 and (e) over 60 years were released to no fixed abode in each of the last 10 years. [169137]

  Paul Goggins
  The available information, from large-scale resettlement surveys of sentenced prisoners nearing release conducted in November-December 2001 and March-April 2003, is contained in the following table. Comparable information for preceding years is not available.

  Proportion of prisoners without accommodation arranged on release, by prisoner type

  Resettlement survey

  2001

  Percentage 2003

  Male young offenders (aged 18–20)

  23

  10

  Adult males (aged 21 or over)

  34

  30

  Females

  41

  38

  Total

  33

  29

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) suicides, (b) attempted suicides and (c) incidents of self-harm by serving prisoners there were in each of the last 10 years. [169089]

  Paul Goggins
  The numbers of self-inflicted deaths and numbers of incidents of self-harm in prisons in England and Wales are provided in the following table:

  Calendar year

  Number of self-inflicted deaths

  Number of incidents of self-harm (not available pre -1998

  1994

  61

  —

  1995

  59

  —

  1996

  64

  —

  1997

  68

  —

  1998

  84

  3,207

  1999

  91

  3,721

  2000

  81

  5,227

  2001

  73

  7,486

  2002

  95

  9,745

  2003

  94

  116,223

  1In December 2002, a new form for reporting self-harm was introduced across the prisons estate, which is known to have improved reporting practices. Please note therefore that much of the increase in reported self-harm in 2003 may have resulted from the change in reporting procedures rather than reflect an actual increase in incidence of self-harm.

  Suicidal intent is not easy to establish. The reasons why people self-injure are highly complex, and it is difficult to distinguish between acts of self-harm that were attempts at ending life, and those which occurred for other reasons. It is not possible, therefore, for the Prison Service to extrapolate from the data recording incidents of self-harm those acts that may have been attempts at suicide.

  Central to the suicide prevention strategy that I announced on 31 March is the need to reduce the level of distress in prisons and to promote the well being of all staff and prisoners. The strategy has strong support from partner agencies and external organisations, and is being developed in close partnership with the
  1550W
  Department of Health. The Prison Service has also been developing a separate but related self-harm management strategy.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the prison population has been diagnosed as suffering from dyslexia. [169132]

  Paul Goggins
  Past research suggests that the proportion of prisoners suffering from dyslexia could range from four to over 17 per cent. The new prison dyslexia project, currently under way in Yorkshire and Humberside, is designed to provide an authoritative answer to the quest ion of the incidence of dyslexia and related learning disabilities among the prison population. A full report is expected at the end of the summer.

  All establishments provide screening and initial assessment for prisoners. Potential dyslexia indicators can be identified through them. New diagnostic assessments for prisoners, to be administered after initial assessment by a specialist teacher, will offer guidance on when to refer learners for a full dyslexia assessment with an educational psychologist or other appropriately trained person.

  Prisons
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask tile Secretary of State for the Home Department when the results of the audit to identify foreign nationals sentenced to a term of imprisonment will be available. [164404]

  Paul Goggins
  An audit by the Prison Service began in January to ensure that all relevant information on foreign national prisoners that it holds in its custody had been passed to the Immigration Service. This is particularly important for those who will be eligible for the Early Removal Scheme (ERS).

  As this audit concerns the confirmation of personal data on prisoners between the Prison and Immigration Services there are no plans to make the results publicly available.

  Probation Service
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the change in gross pension provision for the(a) National Probation Directorate and (b) National Probation Service (Local Area Boards) will be following the publication of the Spring Supplementary Estimates for 2003–04. [168462]

  Paul Goggins
  The Spring Supplementary Estimates for 2003–04 do not make any change in pension provision for either(a) the National Probation Directorate or (b) the local Probation Boards of the National Probation Service.

  Staff in the National Probation Directorate are part of the Civil Service Pension Scheme. Staff in local Probation Boards are part of the Local Government Pension Scheme and the actuarial rate for employers' contributions was set in 2001 for the financial years 2002–03,2003–04 and 2004–05.

  Racial Harassment
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers, preventing racial harassment have been introduced since 1997; and how many times these powers have been used in Birkenhead. [166486]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created new and separate offences where the offences of causing fear and violence or of causing harassment, alarm or distress under the Public Order Act 1986, or the offences of harassment or putting in fear of violence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 were racially aggravated.

  Figures for the number of prosecutions in Birkenhead for this type of offence are not cent rally available. Over the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02, Merseyside Police recorded a total of 434 harassment offences.

  Prior to 1997, the Race Relations Act (RRA) 1976 prohibited discrimination on racial grounds. The RRA did not specifically refer to harassment, but it was clear from case law that racial harassment was a type of detriment capable of amounting to the kind of treatment prohibited by the Act.

  As part of its fulfilment of its obligations under the EC Race Directive, the UK amended the Race Relations Act 1976 (by virtue of the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003) so as to make it unlawful to harass a person, on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins, in the areas of activity covered by the 1976 Act.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers preventing racial harassment have been introduced since 1997; and how many times these powers have been used in Manchester Gorton. [167468]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created new and separate offences where the offences of causing fear and violence or of causing harassment, alarm or distress under the Public Order Act 1986, or the offences of harassment or putting in fear of violence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 were racially aggravated.

  Figures for the number of prosecutions in Manchester Gorton for this type of offence are not centrally available. Over the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02, Greater Manchester police recorded a total of 2,075 harassment offences.

  Prior to 1997, the Race Relations Act (RRA) 1976 prohibited discrimination on racial grounds. The RRA did not specifically refer to harassment, but it was clear from case law that racial harassment was a type of detriment capable of amounting to the kind of treatment prohibited by the Act.

  As part of its fulfilment of its obligations under the EC Race Directive, the UK amended the Race Relations Act 1976 (by virtue of the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003) so as to make it unlawful to harass a person, on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins, in the areas of activity covered by the 1976 Act.

  Racism Action Plan
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role his Department envisages for the Racial Equality Strategy for Northern Ireland in the creation of a wider UK National Action Plan against Racism; and if he will make a statement. [167335]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Government are committed to implementing the outcomes of the Durban World Conference against Racism in a way that makes sense in the UK, given our long track record in tackling racism, inequality and discrimination. Many of the activities identified in the Durban programme of action are already under way throughout the UK.

  The Home Office is currently developing a UK strategy on race equality and community cohesion. The Northern Ireland Administration is developing its own race equality strategy in respect of its areas of devolved responsibility, and both parties are working together to ensure coherence between the two strategies. We will continue to consult widely as this work develops. The Government are looking at our Durban commitments as part of our development of the strategy.

  Roger Sylvester
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether public funds will be available to any of the eight police officers for their possible appeal against the inquest verdict that the death of Mr. Roger Sylvester in custody was an unlawful killing. [169891]

  Ms Blears
  The Court of Administration has now approved the application for a full Judicial Review of the verdict of unlawful killing reached by the inquest into the circumstances surrounding Roger Sylvester's death.

  The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) has agreed to pay the officers' legal costs arising from the Judicial Review but only if it can also fund relevant costs to the Sylvester family. This matter is to be considered at an MPA meeting on 7 May 2004.

  Serious and Organised Crime Agency
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the annual budget for the Serious and Organised Crime Agency will be; [166461]

  (2) what (a) functions and (b) funds are being transferred from the National Criminal Intelligence Service to the Serious Organised Crime Agency. [166596]

  Ms Blears
  Proposals for the Serious Organised Crime Agency were set out in the white paper 'One Step Ahead: A 21st century strategy to defeat organised crime' (Cm6167), published on 29 March. The new Agency will bring together the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), the National Crime Squad (NCS), the investigative and intelligence work of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise (HMCE) on serious drug trafficking and the recovery of related criminal assets, and the Home Office's responsibilities for organised immigration crime The National Criminal Intelligence Service currently works on behalf of all United Kingdom law enforcement agencies, providing strategic and tactical intelligence on serious and organised crime,
  1553W
  nationally and internationally. These functions will be undertaken by the Serious Organised Crime Agency once it is fully operational.

  The Serious Organised Crime Agency will be funded by the Home Office as an executive non-departmental public body; provision will be determined through the Spending Review 2004 process.

  Sex Offenders Register
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) added and (b) registered in total on the Sex Offenders Register in each year since its establishment, broken down by gender. [169106]

  Paul Goggins
  The notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (often known as the sex offenders register) came into force on 1 September 1997. These requirements have been be updated and strengthened through the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

  Until 2001, data on the number of sex offenders were collated on a national basis from the police national computer. However, this arrangement was overtaken following the introduction of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) and the requirement on each police and probation area to produce annual reports detailing the work undertaken to safeguard the public and manage dangerous offenders in the community.

  The MAPPA reports also include statistics on the number of offenders who are subject to the notification requirements. The 2001–02 reports state that on 31 March 2002 there were 18,513 registered sex offenders living in the community. The 2002–03 reports state that on 31 March 2003 there were 21,413 registered sex offenders living in the community. It is not possible to state the gender breakdown of these statistics.

  The Violent and Sex Offenders Register (ViSOR), currently being developed by the Police and Information Technology Organisation, will have greater capacity to store information on sex offenders and provide statistics on the number of convicted sex offenders.

  Solvent Abuse
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate the Prison Service has made of the number of serving offenders who have suffered from solvent abuse. [169062]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service has no data on which to base any such estimate. Healthcare staff will manage any physical or psychological symptoms associated with solvent abuse. CARATs drug workers will address solvent abuse where it is part of polydrugmisuse.

  The Substance Misuse Standard being developed by the Youth Justice Board will place a particular emphasis on solvent abuse, which tends to be more prevalent among younger people.
  1554W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much police authority funding has been granted to voluntary sector bodies to provide training in solvent abuse among children. [169067]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not held centrally.

  Stop and Search
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to he answer of 6 January 2004,Official Report, column 328W, on stop and search, how many arrests resulted from the 56 searches conducted between 6 March and 27 April 2003 under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in the vicinity of RAF Fairford. [166992]

  Ms Blears
  There were no results resulting from the 56 searches conducted between 6 March and 27 April 2003 made under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  Terrorism Arrests
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether those detained on 19 and 20 April in Manchester in connection with alleged terrorist activity are(a) linked to Al Muhajiroon and (b) Supporters of Sharia; and if he will make a statement. [167992]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Your will be aware that the investigation involving those arrested on 19 April 2004 in Manchester, and in some cases re-arrested subsequently, is ongoing. Therefore it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the(a) nationalities and (b) immigration status were of people arrested on suspicion of terrorist offences in each of the last five years; [167960]

  (2) how many people arrested under anti-terrorist legislation have been identified as illegal immigrants in each of the last five years; [167961]

  (3) how many people arrested under anti-terrorist legislation in each of the last five years are current or former asylum seekers in the United Kingdom; [167962]

  (4) how many people have been (a) arrested, (b) charged and (c) convicted under anti-terrorist legislation in each of the last five years, broken down by offence; [167963]

  (5) how many people were arrested in November and December 2003 on suspicion of terrorist offences, broken down by offence; what their (a) nationalities and (b) immigration status are; and how many are current or former asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. [167967]

  Mr. Blunkett
  information on nationality and immigration status can be a key part of the investigation of terrorist offences and the police and Immigration Service work closely together in these cases. I legislated in the Nationality, immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to make it easier to deport foreign nationals who have committed serious offences.
  1555W
  This information is now being collated centrally for statistical purposes but is not available for the years listed by the right hon. Member. It would, however, be disproportionate to require the police and courts to obtain, verify and record this information in all cases.

  The available evidence suggests that only a small number of foreign nationals, asylum seekers or refugees commit serious crimes.

  We are currently awaiting a breakdown of the available figures on arrests, charges and convictions from the Metropolitan police. I will write to the right hon. Member and place a copy in the Library once these have been received.

  UK Border Controls
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether EU Directives prevent the UK from establishing UK border controls and customs points in other EU nation states. [169963]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no EU Directive preventing the UK agreeing with another member state to carry out customs controls in their territory.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to staff UK customs points outside UK borders. [169964]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  UK Customs have only one staffed customs point outside the UK and that is at Coquelles in France dealing with Channel Tunnel shuttle traffic. There are no plans to operate customs points elsewhere outside the UK.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has held discussions with his counterparts in other countries(a) in the EU and (b) elsewhere with regard to mutual co-operation concerning the establishment of manned customs points for the UK outside UK borders. [169965]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  There have been no discussions regarding the establishment of staffed customs points outside UK borders.

  Extremist Websites
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he plans to take to combat(a) recruitment and (b) fundraising through extremist and racist websites; and if he will make a statement. [168005]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  We have discussed these and attendant issues with the police, the Information Commission and the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), all of whom are aware of the kind of websites he describes.

  It is already an offence to incite others to commit any criminal offence. Under the Public Order Act 1986, it is also an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or distribute material which is threatening or abusive so that another person believes
  1556W
  that immediate unlawful violence will be used against them or they will be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

  It is important that existing laws be used where breaches of the criminal law occur. Anyone with concerns should make them known to the relevant authorities and to the IWF.

  We are currently working on an e-crime strategy which will include consideration of issues like these.

  Young Offenders
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders were given a custodial sentence by courts in Wales in each month since January 2003. [168207]

  Paul Goggins
  Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) young offenders and (b) juveniles were given a custodial sentence by courts in London in each month since January 2003. [168637]

  Paul Goggins
  Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Departmental Policies (Sustainable Development)
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what steps he is taking to deliver sustainable development within Government; [165669]

  (2) what progress has been made on his Department's Sustainable Development Strategy. [165670]

  Mr. Pond
  DWP is continuing to develop a Sustainable Development Strategy to support its Policy Statement. Details of the range of targets that the Department, including all of its agencies, are working to deliver are available to all staff via the Department's internal intranet.

  DWP continues to publish specific target related strategies on its website, as targets within the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate are rolled out. A fully comprehensive strategy will be published once this process is complete. Progress on these targets and other related actions is, and will continue to be, published annually in the Department's Annual Sustainable Development Report.

  The Department continues to make steady progress in the delivery of sustainable development. The two officials groups with responsibility for the delivery of the aims and objectives of the Department, as detailed within the DWP Sustainable Development Policy Statement, are continuing the work of fully embedding sustainability within processes across the whole range of businesses. Progress is again reported in the Department's Annual Sustainable Development Report.

  Departmental Stationery
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the Department's main suppliers of(a) copier paper, (b) stationery, (c) envelopes and (d) paper for reports; what the name of each paper used was in each case; and what the (i) recycled and (ii) post-consumer recycled content of each type of paper is. [165642]

  Mr. Pond
  The main suppliers of copier paper to the Department for Work and Pensions are Guilbert, Banner, Glenmore Lomond, Premier Paper and the Paper Company.

  The core recycled paper offered by all suppliers is "Evolve Office" which is made from 100 per cent. post consumer waste, although Guilbert also offer an own brand product "Recycled 3500", which is made from 80 per cent. post consumer waste.

  The main suppliers for desk-top stationery are Guilbert and Banner, who also supply envelopes.

  Reports that are produced and used internally use copier paper, (suppliers listed above). External reports are produced from papers supplied by Aspect, Astron Group, Belmont Press, British Loose Leaf, Corporate Document Services, Charisma, Cherry Print, COI, Colibri, Deanprint, Homer Brothers, Midland Regional Printers, Newtown Printers, Pickards, Print & design Factory, Print Art and Design, Print Solutions UK, Rosehill Press, Sandy Press, Slater Press and Trafford Press.

  Disabled Workers (Oldham, West and Royton)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on measures introduced to improve the working conditions of disabled workers in Oldham West and Royton in the last seven years. [170949]

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

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

  Jobcentre Plus runs a number of specialist programmes providing help for disabled people, including New Deal for Disabled People, Workstep, Access to Work, the Job Introduction Scheme, and Work Preparation. All these programmes provide practical advice and support to disabled people and their employers to help overcome work related obstacles
  1558W
  resulting from disability. Since 1997–98 there have been year on year increases in both numbers helped and programme spend.

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

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

  EU Social Chapter
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the effect of the EU Social Chapter on the residents of Heywood and Middleton. [168530]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The residents of Heywood and Middleton have benefited from the EU Social Chapter by having their employment rights extended to include:
  the right to Parental Leave which gives parents the right to 13 weeks unpaid leave at the birth or adoption of a child;
  the entitlement of part-time workers to the same pro-rata terms and conditions of employment as full time workers, thereby removing any discrimination and improving the quality of part-time jobs;
  the provision that once a prima facie case has been made in an employment tribunal claim, the burden of proof is placed on the defendant (usually the employer), who will need to demonstrate that sex discrimination has not occurred;
  rights under the Fixed Term Work Directive that provide equal treatment and prevent abuse of fixed term contracts;
  rights under the European Works Council Directive which requires companies with at least 1000 employees in total and at least 150 workers in each of the two Member States, to establish structures for consulting workers on issues that affect them and;

  In addition, the Information and Consultation of Employees Directive to be implemented in the UK by March 2005, establishes a right to new minimum standards for workforce communication and involvement in large firms.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) raid Star Alliance consultants to advise on the restructure and re focusing of the Health and Safety Commission and HSE. [166862]

  Jane Kennedy
  [holding answer 26 April 2004]: The Health and Safety Executive employed the Star Alliance to assist with its change and modernisation programme at a cost of £1.088 million. This included the design and implementation of workshops for all staff to embed new values and behaviours; a leadership development and

  1559W
  training programme for all senior staff; advice on a new communications function and strategy; research on stakeholder and public attitudes; and developing and strengthening the organisation's change management capabilities.

  Incapacity Care Allowance
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the incentives to work for those in receipt of incapacity care allowance and seeking part-time work with earnings over £4,000 per annum. [167177]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 22 April 2004]: Since April 2000, people who participate in work trials and placements approved and arranged through Jobcentres can retain their incapacity benefits. Under the new Permitted Work rules for incapacity, benefit, introduced from April 2002, recipients can earn up to £20 a week for an unlimited period, or work for less than 16 hours a week and earn up to £72 a week for 26 weeks. This can be extended for a further 26 weeks if progress is being made towards work of 16 hours a week or more. Those doing supported permitted work can earn up to and including £72 a week for an indefinite period. This earnings limit has been increased to its current level from £48 per week in 1998 to keep pace with increases in the National Minimum Wage.

  Recipients of carer's allowance are not required to be available for, and actively seeking, work as a condition of entitlement to the allowance. However, working age carers living in Jobcentre Plus areas are required to attend, where possible, a work focussed interview, and are encouraged to keep in touch wit a the labour market.

  Incentives to work for carer's allowance recipients who are seeking part-time work with earnings of over £4,000 per year are provided by the earnings rule which enables them to retain the allowance if their net earnings do not exceed £79 a week after deduction of allowable expenses. These include income tax, national insurance contributions, half of their superannuation contributions and some of the cost of providing care for the disabled person the recipient cares for and/or for the recipient's children whilst the recipient is at work. The earnings limit is set at the same amount as the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions and is increased each year.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of recipients of incapacity care allowance who are(a) in employment, (b) of working age but not employed and (c) of working age, not employed hit seeking work. [167178]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 22 April 2004]: Incapacity benefits provide a source of income for people of working age with health conditions or disabilities. There are around 2.7 pillion people with such conditions claiming incapacity benefit, severe disability allowance, income support or national insurance credits. More than 37,000 recipients of incapacity benefit and SDA currently do some permitted work whilst receiving the benefit. In addition,
  1560W
  the Labour Force Survey suggests around 3 per cent. of those receiving these benefits have looked for work within the last four weeks.

  As at 30 November 2003, some 32,500 recipients of carer's allowance were in employment and a further 365,000 working age recipients of the allowance were not employed. Although recipients of the allowance are not required to be available for, and actively seeking, work as a condition of entitlement to it, around 1,000 recipients were also claiming jobseeker's allowance and, hence, actively seeking work. There may be others who are actively seeking work, but do not use the services of Jobcentre Plus.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many recipients of incapacity care allowance there were in each of the last five years. [167179]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 22 April 2004]: The information is in the table.

  Incapacity benefits and carer's allowance recipients

  Incapacity benefit

  Thousands Carer's allowance

  1999

  2,637.5

  379.8

  2000

  2,677.9

  397.6

  2001

  2,705.1

  376.2

  2002

  2,710.1

  402.7

  2003

  2,720.5

  418.7

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands.

  2. Incapacity benefit figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample taken at the end of November each year.

  3. Carer's allowance figures for 1999, 2001 and 2002 are based on a 5 per cent. sample taken at the end of December each year, figures for 2000 are estimated and figures for 2003 are based on a 5 per cent. sample taken at the end of November.

  4. Figures include people receiving incapacity benefit, credits only cases and people in receipt of severe disablement allowance.

  Source:

  DWP information centre

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to Question 160679, tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon on 8 March 2004. [169392]

  Mr. Pond
  A reply was given to the hon. Member on 28 April.

  Pathways to Work
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what independent evaluation of the Pathways to Work pilot programme has been undertaken. [168847]

  Maria Eagle
  The first tranche of Pathways to Work pilots were launched in October 2003 and the second tranche in April 2004. An independent evaluation of the pilots has been commissioned and will be carried out by independent research organisations managed by DWP analysts.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what role there is for(a) private companies and (b) voluntary organisations in the delivery of Pathways to Work. [168848]
  1561W
  Maria Eagle
  Seven Pathways to Work pilot areas are now operational; they are managed and run by Jobcentre Plus with additional specialist services provided from a number of sources.

  The New Deal for Disabled People plays a key role in helping people on incapacity benefits into employment with support provided by organisations from the private, voluntary and public sectors. Jobcentre Plus also has contracts with private and voluntary organisations to deliver specialist disability employment programmes such as Work Preparation, Workstep, and Work Based Learning for Adults.

  In addition, the Pathways to Work pilots provide condition management programmes in conjunction with NHS Primary Care Trusts to help people with health conditions to better manage their condition and help them successfully return to work. Primary care Trusts can commission services from local providers, from public, private or voluntary sectors, in order to meet specific requirements.

  Pension Schemes
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the Government will require solvent employers to make up any shortfall to the full buy-out value of an employer funded pension scheme that has been promised to members as their pension entitlement when the scheme is wound up, regardless of the date when the wind-up commenced. [169869]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government have already announced its intentions on "full buy-out" and has introduced Regulations that bring about a significant change to the protection afforded to scheme members.

  The Occupational Pension Schemes (Winding Up and Deficiency on Winding Up etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 were introduced to strengthen members' protection when a salary-related occupational pension scheme, subject to section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995, starts to wind up while its sponsoring employer is solvent.

  The Regulations mean that the debt on the employer is calculated on the basis that the scheme should be able to meet the full costs of winding up and the full benefits that scheme members have accrued and expect to receive. The Regulations will ensure that members are more likely to receive the pensions they expect.

  The Government expect sponsoring employers of pension schemes to take their obligations seriously and act in the spirit of the Government's stated intentions. However, the Government will not be requiring employers whose schemes started to wind up before 11 June 2003 to make up any shortfall in these schemes to the "full buy-out" level. To do so would mean that the Regulations affected schemes that started to wind up before the employer, trustees or other relevant parties were aware of the new requirements. It is possible that for some employers such a change could place a significant financial imposition on them that they had not budgeted for.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which categories of contracted out rebates are(a) paid out in tip form of reductions in the rate of national insurance contributions payable by an employee or employer and (b) paid directly into pension funds. [170980]

  Malcolm Wicks
  For Defined Benefit Occupational Schemes, the whole of the contracted-out rebate is paid through a reduce ion in the National Insurance contribution. For Defined Contribution Occupational Schemes, part of the contracted-out rebate is paid as a reduction in the National Insurance contribution and part is paid by the Inland Revenue direct to the scheme at the end of the relevant tax year. For Appropriate Personal Pensions Schemes (the term applied to personal pension schemes that can be used to contract out), the whole of the rebate is paid by the Inland Revenue direct to the scheme at the end of the relevant tax year.

  Recycled Paper
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of copying paper used by the Department in 2002–03 was from recycled sources; and how much post-consumer waste this paper contained. [165671]

  Mr. Pond
  The UK Sustainable Development in Government Second Annual report shows that in the year ended 31 March 2003 recycled paper accounted for 3 per cent. of the value of desk top paper purchased by the Department for Work and Pensions. The post consumer waste element of that recycled paper was 80 per cent. or more.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of paper for printed publications used by the Department in 2002–03 was from recycled sources; and how much post-consumer waste this paper contained. [165672]

  Mr. Pond
  The UK Sustainable Development in Government Second Annual report shows that in the year ended 31 March 2003 recycled paper accounted for 41 per cent. of the value of paper for printed publications purchased by the Department for Work and Pensions. Subsequent information shows that these figures are inaccurate, and that the percentage of recycled paper made from post consumer waste is actually 10 per cert. We are working to identify the discrepancies in figures and progress will be reported on in the Department's annual Sustainable Development Report, and the annual Sustainable Development in Government report

  Paul Holmes
  To a the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he has put in place to ensure that his Department meets the quick win targets set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that all copying paper bought by the Department is 100 per cent. recycled, with a minimum of 75 per cent. post-consumer waste content. [165673]
  1563W
  Mr. Pond
  The existing contract for the supply of office paper offers a mix of six different papers, of which two are recycled. An exercise is currently under way that will move the Department's office paper solely to recycled, which will have a minimum of 80 per cent. of post consumer waste, by early 2005.

  Progress will be reported on in the annual Sustainable Development in Government report and in the Department's own annual Sustainable Development Report.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he has put in place to ensure that his Department meets the quick win targets set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that all paper for printed publications bought by the Department is 60 per cent. recycled, of which a minimum is 75 per cent. post-consumer waste. [165674]

  Mr. Pond
  Procurement units within the Department for Work and Pensions have been made aware of the quick win target for the purchase of paper for printed publications.

  New print contracts are currently being developed that will include options for recycled paper and progress will be reported on in the annual Sustainable Development in Government report and the Department's own annual Sustainable Development Report.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by what date his Department expects to attain the quick win targets set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that(a) all copying paper bought by the Department is 100 per cent. recycled with a minimum of 75 per cent. post-consumer waste content and (b) all paper for printed publications bought by the Department is 60 per cent. recycled, of which a minimum is 75 per cent. post-consumer waste. [165675]

  Mr. Pond
  An exercise is currently under way within the Department for Work and Pensions, which will be completed by early 2005, to move supply of core office copier paper to 100 per cent. recycled with a minimum content of 80 per cent. post consumer waste.

  The Department is currently working to identify a common approach and policy, to enable us to meet the quick win targets for printed publications.

  Progress on both these areas will be reported on in future Department for Work and Pensions Annual Sustainable Development Reports and the Governments Sustainable Development in Government Annual Report.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many mothers in Wigan have taken up the Sure Start maternity grant. [169314]

  Mr. Pond
  The available informal ion is in the table.
  1564W

  Sure Start Maternity Grants for Wigan Jobcentre Plus District

  Year

  Applications

  Awards

  2000–01

  1,205

  1,055

  2001–02

  1,369

  1,209

  2002–03

  1,785

  1,405

  2003–04

  2,055

  1,385

  Notes:

  1. Data are not available by Parliamentary Constituency. Wigan Parliamentary Constituency is part of Wigan Jobcentre Plus District, which was previously called Wigan and Leigh Social Fund District.

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

  Source:

  DWP Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many mothers in Preston have taken up the Sure Start maternity grant. [169725]

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

  Sure Start maternity grants

  Applications

  Awards

  Preston social fund district

  2000–01

  1,276

  1,106

  2001–02

  1,536

  1,305

  2002–03

  1,836

  1,531

  2003 April

  152

  95

  Lancashire West Jobcentre Plus district

  2003 May to March

  4,866

  3,710

  Notes:

  1. In May 2003, Preston social fund district was combined with Blackpool social fund district and parts of South West Lancashire and, Lancaster and South Cumbria social fund districts to form Lancashire West Jobcentre Plus district. The data for the two different areas are not comparable.

  2. SSMGs were introduced on 27 March 2000. The very small number of cases for 1999–2000 have been excluded for data protection reasons.

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

  Source:

  DWP Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many mothers in Manchester, Gorton have made use of the Sure Start maternity grant. [167350]

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

  Sure Start maternity grants in Manchester Central Social Fund district

  Applications

  Awards

  2000–01

  1,102

  986

  2001–02

  1,200

  1,065

  2002 to December

  984

  858

  1565W

  Sure Start maternity grants in Manchester Jobcentre Plus district

  Applications

  Awards

  2003 January to March

  1,039

  889

  2003–04

  4,708

  3,635

  Sure Start maternity grants in area covered by Manchester, Oldham and Rochdale, and Bolton and Bury Jobcentre Plus districts

  Applications

  Awards

  2001–01

  8,548

  7,076

  2001–02

  10,197

  8,036

  2002–03

  12,138

  9,274

  2003–04

  12,715

  9,411

  Notes:

  1. Data are not available by parliamentary constituency.

  2. Manchester Gorton parliamentary constituency used to be part of Manchester Central Social Fund district and is now part of Manchester Jobcentre Plus district. The latter was formed in January 2003 from Manchester Central, Manchester South and Manchester Trinity Social Fund districts, together with part of Oldham Social Fund district. The data for the Social Fund district are not directly comparable with that for the Jobcentre Plus District.

  3. In a set of interlocking boundary changes which took place in January 2003, six Social Fund districts were reorganised into the three Jobcentre Plus districts of Manchester, Oldham and Rochdale, and Bolton and Bury. For comparison purposes, data is given for the area covered by these three Jobcentre Plus districts. These data are shown for comparative purposes.

  4. Sure Start maternity grants were introduced on 27 March 2000. The very small numbers of cases for 1999–2000 have been excluded for data protection reasons.

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

  Source:

  DWP Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Adoption
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made on improving the(a) efficiency, (b) speed and (c) effectiveness of the Child Adoption Service; and if he will make a statement. [167203]

  Margaret Hodge
  In February 2000 the Prime Minister announced a review of adoption by the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU). The PIU identified key problems and made recommendations in its report, published in July 2000.

  Following this review the Government implemented a raft of measures to help improve the adoption service. The Government have:
  set an adoption target for the year ending March 2005 for an increase of 40 per cent. in the number of adoptions of looked after children. The baseline for this target is the 2,700 adoptions arranged during the year ending March 2000. Up to the year ending March 2003 there had been an increase of nearly 30 per cent., with 3,500 children being adopted from care;
  published statutory National Adoption Standards setting out clear timescales for adoption agencies to make decisions about children and prospective adopters;
  1566W
  set up an Adoption and Permanence Task Force to identify problems in service delivery and to strengthen and promote best practice. The task force has worked with many local authorities to develop and improve their adoption services;
  developed an Adopter Recruitment Toolkit and a video for adoption agencies to support their local recruitment of prospective adopters;
  established an Adoption Register for England and Wales to help identify potential links between children needing families and those waiting to adopt, and so widen the pool of potential adopters for children;
  introduced the Ad option and Children Act 2002, which received Royal Assent on 7 November 2002. The Act overhauls the outdated 1976 Adoption Act and modernises the whole existing legal framework for domestic and inter-country adoption.

  The Government have already implemented the following key provisions of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (the Act):
  1 June 2003: restrictions on adoptions from overseas;
  31 October 2003: adoption support for adoptive families;
  1 December 2003: parental responsibility for unmarried fathers who jointly register the birth of their child with the mother;
  1 April 2004: advocacy services for children and young people.

  The first phase of the independent review mechanism, which will cover prospective adopters whose adoption agency is minded not to approve them, became operational on 30 April 2004. We expect the provisions on Independent Reviewing Officers to come into force in September 2004.

  A series of consultation documents are being published this year on other provisions in the Act. Copies will be available in the Library.

  The regulations, court rules and guidance required to implement the core of the Act should be in place by the end of 2004. After a period for preparation and training, we expect the legislation to come into force in September 2005.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of birth parents who wish to establish contact with children given up for adoption; and how he proposes to help them. [169043]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Adoption and Children Act 2002 (the Act) provides for two new access to information frameworks, which could facilitate contact between an adopted adult and his birth relatives. The Government are now consulting on the draft regulations and guidance to implement the provisions in the Act, and a copy of the consultation document is in the Library. Section 98 of the Act provides for access to information in relation to adoptions made before the commencement of the Act and sections 56 to 65 of the Act provide the framework for access to information in relation to post-commencement adoptions.

  According to statistics from the Registrar General's Office, approximately 875,000 people have been adopted since the commencement of the Adoption Act 1926. It is only possible to speculate how many people may choose to exercise their right to apply for information under section 98 of the Act. When the numbers of birth parents and other relatives are

  1567W
  considered, there could be over two million people who might have an interest in applying or who may be the subject of an application.

  The Government anticipate that there will be an initial surge of applications from those who have been waiting for section 98 of the Act to be implemented. Some adoption stakeholders have suggested that this could amount to around 20,000 to 30,000 initial applications. The Government intend the framework for section 98 to be implemented in two stages to help registered adoption support agencies, adoption agencies, the Registrar General and the courts manage the initial demand for services. We are consulting on this specific point as part of the overall consultation for the regulations and guidance on access to information and we will carefully consider the responses.

  £000

  April 2001 to July 20011

  August 2001 to July 2002

  August 2002 to July 2003

  LSC Area

  Basic skills

  Key skills

  Basic skills

  Key skills

  Basic skills

  Key skills

  London North

  8,753

  985

  14,099

  1,395

  18,829

  1,921

  London West

  13,671

  858

  24,013

  1,629

  29,303

  1,652

  London Central

  18,207

  1,119

  38,694

  1,733

  38,130

  1,204

  London East

  14,746

  1,476

  31,412

  2,114

  39,783

  2,367

  London South

  5,758

  998

  13,241

  1,488

  15,398

  1,728

  1The figures for April to July 2001 include costs incurred from August 2000 on learning aims continuing into April 2001.

  From the information available to the LSC it has not been feasible to obtain estimates at constituency level or separate figures by subject without incurring disproportionate cost. Likewise it has not been feasible to obtain comparable figures for periods before April 2001 when the Skills for Life strategy was launched and the LSC was formed, but information shows it was considerably less than at present.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what public funding has been spent on adult(a) literacy and (b) numeracy in Preston in each of the last five years. [169683]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated total spend on Skills For Life (the Government's strategy for literacy, language and numeracy needs of all post-16 learners from pre-entry level up to and including level 2) and on Key Skills (essential skills of communication, application of number and information technology), from April 2001 to July 2003, in the Lancashire Learning and Skills Council (LSC) area is set out in the following table:

  Lancashire Learning and Skills Council (LSC)

  £000

  Basic skills

  Key skills

  April to July 20011

  3,370

  1,270

  August 2001 to July 2002

  6,577

  1,857

  August 2002 to July 2003

  7,815

  1,948

  1The figures for April to July 2001 include costs incurred from August 2000 on learning aims continuing into April 2001.

  From the information available to the LSC it has not been feasible to obtain estimates at constituency level or separate figures by subject without incurring disproportionate cost. Likewise it has not been feasible to obtain comparable figures for periods before April 2001 when the Skills for Life strategy was launched and the LSC was formed, but information shows it was considerably less than at present.

  Adult Education
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what public funding has been spent on adult(a) literacy and (b) numeracy in Greater London, broken down by local education authority, in each of the last five years. [170497]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated total spend on Skills For Life (the Government's strategy for literacy, language and numeracy needs of all post-16 learners from pre-entry level up to and including level 2) and on Key Skills (essential skills of communication, application of number and information technology), from April 2001 to July 2003, in each of the London Learning and Skills Council (LSC) areas is set out in the following the table:

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what public funding has been spent on adult(a) literacy and (b) numeracy in Wigan in each of the last five years. [169277]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated total spend on Skills For Life (the Government's strategy for literacy, language and numeracy needs of all post-16 learners from pre-entry level up to and including level 2) and on Key Skills (essential skills of communication, application of number and information technology), from April 2001 to July 2003, in the Greater Manchester Learning and Skills Council (LSC) area, is set out in the following table:

  £000

  Basic skills

  Key skills

  April to July 20011

  8,925

  2,598

  August 2001 to July 2002

  15,369

  3,586

  August 2002 to July 2003

  27,258

  4,210

  1The figures for April to July 2001 include costs incurred from August 2000 on learning aims continuing into April 2001.

  From the information available to the LSC it has not been feasible to obtain estimates at constituency level or separate figures by subject without incurring disproportionate cost. Likewise it has not been feasible to obtain comparable figures for periods before April 2001 when the Skills for Life strategy was launched and the LSC was formed, but information shows it was considerably less than at present.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many residents of Wigan have undertaken apprenticeships in each of the last five years. [169364]
  1569W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not available at parliamentary constituency level. Nor is the information available on a consistent geographical basis over the last five years.

  However, the table shows the number of starts on modern apprenticeships in the Greater Manchester Learning and Skills Council (LSC) area between April

  Time period

  TEC/LSC

  Advanced MAs

  Foundation MAs

  April 1998 to March 1999

  Bolton and Bury CCTE

  800

  600

  Manchester

  2,400

  700

  Oldham CCTE

  400

  300

  Rochdale CCTE

  500

  100

  Stockport and High Peak1

  800

  100

  Wigan CCTE

  700

  300

  April 1999 to March 200

  Bolton and Bury CCTE

  900

  1000

  Manchester

  2,800

  1,800

  Oldham CCTE

  500

  500

  Rochdale CCTE

  500

  600

  Stockport and High Peak1

  700

  700

  Wigan CCTE

  700

  600

  April 2000 to March 2001

  Bolton and Bury CCTE

  700

  1,200

  Manchester

  3,200

  2,600

  Oldham CCTE

  500

  700

  Rochdale CCTE

  400

  700

  Stockport and High Peak1

  800

  1,000

  Wigan CCTE

  900

  800

  April 2001 to July 2002

  Greater Manchester LSC

  4,800

  9,800

  March 2001 to July 2002

  Greater Manchester LSC

  2,900

  6,800

  1TECs reported the figures in financial years. LSC reports figures in academic years. The first LSC 'year' was 16 months in order to bring the financial year figures into line with academic years

  Source:

  TEC management information

  LSC Individualised Learner Record

  Denotes:

  TEC also became part of Derbyshire LSC

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many residents of Burnley have undertaken apprenticeships in each of the last five years. [167939]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not available at parliamentary constituency level. Nor is the information available on a consistent geographical basis over the last five years. However, the following table shows the number of starts on modern apprenticeships in the Lancashire LSC area between April 2001 and the end of July 2003, as well as the number of starts from April 1996 to March 2001 in the two TECs that amalgamated into Lancashire LSC—ELTEC and LAWTEC.

  Time Period1

  TEC/LSC

  Advanced MA

  Foundation MA

  April 1998 to March 1999

  ELTEC

  1,000

  400

  LAWTEC

  1,600

  100

  April 1999 to March 2000

  ELTEC

  800

  1,100

  LAWTEC

  1,900

  1,800

  April 2000 to March 2001

  ELTEC

  900

  1,300

  LAWTEC

  1,800

  2,100

  April 2001 to July 2002

  Lancashire

  LSC

  1,900

  4,100

  1570W
  2001 and the end of July 2003, as well as the number of starts from April 1996 to March 2001 in the six Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) that amalgamated into Greater Manchester LSC—Bolton and Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and High Peak and Wigan.

  Time Period1

  TEC/LSC

  Advanced MA

  Foundation MA

  August 2002 to July 2003

  Lancashire LSC

  1,500

  3,300

  1TECs reported the figures in financial years. LSC reports figures in academic years. The first LSC 'year' was 16 months in order to bring the financial year figures into line with academic years.

  Source:

  TEC Management Information

  LSC Individualised Learner Record

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many residents of the Uxbridge constituency have undertaken apprenticeships in each of the last five years. [168990]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not available at parliamentary constituency level. Nor is the information available on a consistent geographical basis over the last five years. However, the following table shows the number of starts on modern apprenticeships in the west London Learning and skills Council (LSC) area between April 2001 and the end of July 2003, as well as the number of starts from April 1996 to March 2001 in the three Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) that amalgamated into West London LSC—Focus Central London, north west London and west London.
  1571W

  Time period1

  TEC/LSC

  Advanced MAs

  Foundation MAs

  April 1998 to March 1999

  Focus Central London2

  1,700

  500

  North west London

  400

  300

  West London3

  1,300

  1,000

  April 1999 to March 2000

  Focus central London2

  2,300

  1,200

  North west London

  400

  500

  West London3

  1,000

  1,400

  April 2000 to March 2001

  Focus central London2

  2,500

  1,900

  North west London

  500

  500

  West London3

  1,100

  2,100

  April 2001 to July 2002

  West London LSC

  900

  1,800

  March 2001 to July 2002

  West London LSC

  600

  1,200

  1TECs reported the figures in financial years. LSC reports figures in academic years. The first LSC 'year' was 16 months in order to bring the financial year figures into line with academic years.

  2Parts focus central London TEC became parts of central London and east London LSCs

  3Part of west London TEC became part of south London LSC

  Source:

  TEC management information LSC Individualised Learner Record

  Autism
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to develop education facilities for children with(a) autism and (b) Asperger's syndrome. [168970]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government are playing its part in raising awareness of autism and working in partnership with the voluntary sector and others to improve provision. Some children with autism benefit from mainstream provision, others from specialist provision. The SEN legislative framework and accompanying guidance helps schools and LEAs to support children with autism in the right setting. Children with autistic spectrum disorders, including those with Asperger's syndrome, are benefiting along with others from the considerable additional resources for education and the increase in spending on special educational needs.

  My Department has issued, jointly with the Department of Health, guidance from the Autism Working Group to help providers plan and make good quality provision for children with autistic spectrum disorders. In February, we published "Removing Barriers to Achievement—the Government's Strategy for Special Educational Needs." (www.teachernet.gov.uk/senstrategy). The strategy sets out our long term vision for the education of children with special educational needs and a programme of action which incorporates a range of measures to support improvements in provision for these children and young people. These include an Inclusion Development Programme to support partnership projects involving education, health and social care, voluntary organisations, higher education institutions, special and mainstream schools, and early years settings to develop and pilot effective practice. Autistic spectrum disorders will be one of the key areas the programme will focus on initially. The strategy sets out a clear future role for special schools and recognises the part they play in making specialist provision for children with severe and complex needs, including many, with autism and Asperger's syndrome.

  CAFCASS
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what guidance 1572W
  he has given to CAFCASS on its response to the court of appeal ruling, Thorpe, Rix and Arden, 24 October 2002, on the failure of CAFCASS to meet its requirements under European Convention on Human Rights Articles 6 and 8. [167632]

  Margaret Hodge
  The decision to which the question refers, known as Re T (contact: alienation; permission to appeal) [2002] EWCA Civ 1736 and [2003] 1 FLR 531, did not in fact rule on "the failure of CAFCASS to meet its requirements under the European Convention on Human Rights Articles 6,8" as stated. The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Thorpe) did, however, indicate that there were issues for the Government and judiciary to consider, including the services CAFCASS can be expected to provide "in order to assist the forensic process to satisfy Convention standards?"

  No guidance has been issued from the Department of Constitutional Affairs or the Department for Education and Skills to CAFCASS on this matter.

  Child Care (Wigan)
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will make a statement on the number of children in Wigan who have benefited from the National Childcare Strategy; [169281]

  (2) how many child care places have been created in Wigan since 1997. [169363]

  Margaret Hodge
  From April 1999 to December 2003 Wigan local authority created 5,072 new child care places helping some 9,169 children. This shows an increase in the stock of child care places, taking into account turnover, of 2,853 helping some 5,245 children.

  Computer Learning Centres
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Capital Modernisation Fund computer learning centres have been established in Wigan. [169290]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There are 21 Capital Modernisation funded centres in Wigan.

  Education Funding
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been
  1573W
  allocated to schools in Heywood and Middleton for information and communications technology since 2001. [168512]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to his question on funding spent on computers for schools in Rochdale in each of the last seven years on 29 April 2004, Official Report, column 1258W.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what public funding has been spent on adult(a) literacy and (b) numeracy in Stalybridge and Hyde in each of the last five years. [168761]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated total spend on Skills For Life (the Government's strategy for literacy, language and numeracy needs of all post-16 learners from pre-entry level up to and including level 2) and on Key Skills (essential skills of communication, application of number and information technology), from April 2001 to July 2003, in the Greater Manchester Learning and Skills Council (LSC) area is set out in the table:

  £000

  Basic skills

  Key skills

  April to July 20011

  8,925

  2,598

  August 2001 to July 2002

  15,369

  3,586

  August 2002 to July 2003

  27,258

  4,210

  1The figures for April to July 2001 include costs incurred from August 2000 on learning aims continuing into April 2001.

  From the information available to the LSC it has not been feasible to obtain estimates at constituency level or separate figures by subject without incurring disproportionate cost. Likewise it has not been feasible to obtain comparable figures for periods before April

  Table (a) Ufi

  Funding allocated—centrally (£000)

  Financial year

  1990–2000 17 months 1 Actual

  2000–01 12 months Actual

  2001–02 12 months Actual

  2002–03 12 months Actual

  2003–04 12 months Actual

  2004–05 12 months Budget

  (a) Marketing2

  1,969

  8,224

  9,767

  10,126

  10,156

  8,721

  (b) Consultants

  560

  741

  1,117

  1,637

  2,927

  389

  (c) Advertising2

  2,990

  12,474

  12,727

  8,652

  11,112

  9,542

  (d) Administration

  9,408

  12,418

  17,309

  20,106

  21,435

  25,007

  (e) Buildings3

  841

  1,104

  1,120

  1,263

  1,473

  1,631

  1Ufi Limited's first statutory reporting period was 17 months to 31 March 2000. The figures used are consistent with information filed with Companies House.

  2The figures provided for 2004–05 have not been finalised and the analysis is based on the 2003–04 ratio.

  3Accommodation related costs such as rent, rates, facilities management.

  (ii)Learning and Skills Council

  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, to write to the hon. Gentleman with the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  (iii)Connexions Service

  (A)Central

  (a) and (c)Marketing and Advertising

  The following table shows the amounts allocated in each year since the launch of Connexions in April 2001
  1574W
  2001 when the Skills for Life strategy was launched and the LSC was formed, but information shows it was considerably less than at present.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been allocated for(a) marketing, (b) consultants, (c) advertising, (d) administration and (e) buildings for (i) the University for Industry, (ii) the learning and skills councils and (iii) the Connexions service, broken down by (A) centrally and (B) locally-allocated funds, in each year since 1997. [167575]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is as follows: (i)Ufi

  Ufi, launched in 2000, receives an annual grant from my Department which funds their infrastructure and operating costs such as product development. My Department does not specify the exact amount of money which should be allocated by Ufi on individual items. Figures halve however, been provided in Table (a) following which show the funds expended by Ufi for marketing, consultants, advertising, administration and buildings provided on a central basis in each of the financial years since 1999. Much of the marketing developed centrally is also used locally by Ufi/learndirect centres and hubs. Marketing and advertising at local level does however remain the responsibility of Ufi/learndirect hubs and centres, many of which are private organisations who set their budgets accordingly. No central information is held on this local expenditure. Also, Ufi uses consultants to support the development of the national Ufi/learndirect network and does not allocate consultancy budgets at local level.

  for centrally-managed marketing and advertising activity in support of the Connexions Service.

  (b) Consultants

  No funding is allocated specifically for spending on consultants either nationally or regionally. However, consultants are engaged where this is judged to be the most cost-effective method of achieving objectives.

  (d) Administration

  Table (b) following shows the amounts allocated in each year since the launch of Connexions in April 2001

  1575W
  for the salaries and associated administrative costs of staff managing Connexions and a range of associated initiatives. In addition, the table also shows those amounts allocated to regional Government Offices for the salary and associated administration costs of their staff managing Connexions.

  Table (b) Connexions service

  Funding allocated—centrally (£000)

  Financial year

  1990–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  (a) Marketing

  —

  —

  1,000

  1,900

  850

  1—

  (b) Consultants

  —

  —

  2n/a

  2n/a

  2n/a

  2n/a

  (c) Advertising

  —

  —

  4

  1,678

  2,861

  tbc

  (d) Administration Head Office3

  —

  —

  5,637

  5,784

  6,098

  tbc

  Government Office

  —

  —

  2,500

  2,750

  2,625

  2,500

  (e) buildings

  —

  —

  4n/a

  4n/a

  4n/a

  4n/a

  1No allocation.

  2No element of funding is earmarked specifically for this purpose.

  3Head Office (HO) administration figure; cover the costs of all staff working on Connexions and a range of associated policies and programmes. It is not possible to disaggregate the costs of staff working specifically in support of Connexions.

  4It is not possible to disaggregate costs of HO/GO staff working on Connexions.

  (B) Local

  Local Connexions Partnerships have the flexibility to use their funding in a way which best meets local needs; no part of the funding that is allocated to them is ring-fenced for specific activities or purposes such as administration, buildings, marketing, advertising or consultants.

  Excellence in Cities
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Manchester, Gorton have benefited from the Excellence in Cities programme; and what the per pupil spending was in each year since the programme's inception. [167446]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the number of children in Manchester, Gorton benefiting from EiC, and the annual spend per pupil for the years in question.

  Number of children

  Total EiC expenditure1(£)

  Spend per pupil (£)

  1999–2000

  2,511

  2132,000

  52.57

  2000–01

  4,714

  246,545

  52.30

  2001–02

  4,437

  621,273

  140.02

  2002–03

  4,368

  617,778

  141.43

  2003–04

  4,361

  1,204,434

  276.18

  1All funding figures supplied by Manchester Excellence in Cities Team.

  2Estimate.

  The large increase in the rate of EiC funding in 2003–04 is due to the extra funding; provided through the Behaviour Improvement Programme and the Leadership Incentive Grant.

  Field Study
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education arid Skills (1) if he will estimate the number 1576W
  (e) Buildings

  It is not possible to disaggregate the building costs associated with DfES Head Office staff working on Connexions from the costs of other Departmental staff using the same head office building, nor those costs associated with Government Office staff working on Connexions from those associated with other Government Office staff.

  of (a) primary and (b) secondary pupils who attended at least one (i) field study and (ii) residential field study course in 2002–03; [170411]

  (2) whether he plans to make attendance on a field study course a compulsory part of the National Curriculum. [170413]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect information on the number of students attending field study centres on day or residential visits.

  The geography curriculum already requires pupils to be taught to use fieldwork skills, which must be developed during investigations outside the classroom. We have no plans to make attendance on a field study course a compulsory part of the National Curriculum.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment his Department has made of the impact of field study courses on pupil performance. [170412]

  Mr. Miliband
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Further Education
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students in further education failed to complete their course in each year since 1997. [167874]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) routinely present the data in terms of retention rates for qualifications—some learners will be enrolled on more than one qualification. The retention rate is calculated as the number of qualifications completed divided by the number started (excluding transfers). The following table shows the retention rates for further education sector colleges and external institutions for each year since 1997–98.
  1577W

  Retention rates in LSC funded further education (%)

  Year in which qualification was due to be completed

  Institution type

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  2001/02

  Further Education Colleges

  81

  80

  78

  80

  83

  External Institutions

  n/a

  76

  77

  80

  82

  All institutions

  n/a

  79

  78

  80

  83

  n/a=not available

  Source:

  Individual Student Record

  Health Declaration Certificates
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the signature requirements for nursery staff for the Ofsted health declaration certificates are; and if he will reimburse staff for the cost of obtaining a signature from a general practitioner for this certificate. [169758]

  Margaret Hodge
  The health declaration certificate signature requirements for nursery staff are a matter for the Office of Standards in Education (Ofsted) and I have asked HM Chief Inspector for Schools, David Bell, to write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of his letter in the Library. There are no plans to reimburse the cost of obtaining a signed general practitioner's declaration to nursery staff that may require one.

  Hospital Education
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance his Department has produced on the education of children in hospital; and when this guidance was last updated. [170314]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: In November 2001 the DfES jointly with the Department of Health issued the statutory guidance, "Access to Education for children and young people with medical needs". The guidance sets out national minimum standards of education for children who cannot attend school because of their medical needs, including children in hospital. There are no current plans to update the guidance. However, the Department have been working to ensure that the guidance is implemented.

  In June 2003 joint DfES/NHS Estates Guidance was also issued offering advice on the design of education accommodation in hospital settings. The guidance is designed to assist the process of designing excellent education provision in hospital settings whether new of refurbished.

  Number of children looked after at 31 March, and percentage of those who had been continuously looked after for at least 12 months1,2

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  England

  49,300

  69

  49,600

  67

  50,500

  67

  51,200

  69

  London

  9,220

  68

  9,140

  69

  9,200

  68

  9,000

  71

  Inner London

  4,760

  71

  4,750

  71

  4,820

  70

  4,720

  74

  Camden

  275

  75

  260

  76

  260

  68

  270

  69

  City of London

  0

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Greenwich

  285

  75

  280

  81

  295

  72

  330

  73

  Hackney

  485

  75

  480

  74

  490

  72

  485

  71

  1578W

  Learning and Skills Council
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total budget of the Learning and Skills Council has been in each year since its establishment; and what it is for 2004–05. [169975]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The budgets allocated to the Learning and Skills Council in each year since its establishment and for 2004–05, as notified in the relevant Grant Letters to the LSC are as follows:

  £ million

  2001–02

  5,536.000

  2002–03

  7,310.890

  2003–04

  8,095.374

  2004–05

  8,674.103

  The Learning and Skills Council budget however, is subject to in-year changes which have altered the final position as follows:

  £ million

  2001–02

  to 5,501.507

  2002–03

  to 7,612.954

  2003–04

  to 8,420.535

  2004–05

  to 8,693,613

  Looked-After Children
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many looked-after children there have been in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough in each year since 1994; and what proportion of children have been continuously looked after for at least 12 months in (i) Greater London and (ii) each London borough [168881]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: The information requested is shown in the following tables.
  1579W

  Number of children looked after at 31 March, and percentage of those who had been continuously looked after for at least 12 months1,2

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  345

  75

  325

  78

  325

  66

  305

  76

  Islington

  370

  72

  370

  77

  380

  70

  400

  72

  Kensington and Chelsea

  220

  58

  235

  66

  235

  75

  210

  78

  Lambeth

  705

  72

  735

  68

  715

  74

  670

  78

  Lewisham

  495

  72

  455

  71

  480

  71

  475

  74

  Southwark

  550

  69

  580

  71

  590

  71

  570

  78

  Tower Hamlets

  375

  78

  380

  60

  360

  79

  355

  48

  Wandsworth

  385

  64

  385

  62

  380

  65

  375

  71

  Westminster

  265

  65

  275

  67

  305

  60

  275

  78

  Outer London

  4,465

  65

  4,390

  67

  4,385

  66

  4,280

  68

  Barking and Dagenham

  180

  63

  145

  77

  135

  75

  135

  76

  Barnet

  180

  59

  170

  66

  180

  64

  180

  69

  Bexley

  120

  59

  115

  62

  130

  59

  145

  44

  Brent

  410

  66

  365

  78

  345

  75

  330

  72

  Bromley

  220

  61

  240

  66

  240

  68

  250

  71

  Croydon

  350

  64

  310

  62

  340

  59

  330

  65

  Ealing

  360

  71

  360

  76

  345

  80

  370

  71

  Enfield

  195

  66

  200

  67

  200

  72

  200

  71

  Haringey

  545

  61

  495

  61

  360

  69

  315

  74

  Harrow

  120

  62

  125

  65

  150

  59

  150

  69

  Havering

  155

  64

  160

  70

  150

  64

  130

  69

  Hillingdon

  185

  55

  245

  46

  310

  57

  255

  60

  Hounslow

  240

  72

  230

  69

  250

  64

  255

  71

  Kingston Upon Thames

  105

  71

  100

  71

  90

  72

  85

  73

  Merton

  170

  70

  165

  71

  185

  63

  170

  70

  Newham

  385

  61

  410

  67

  415

  66

  395

  65

  Redbridge

  105

  68

  125

  50

  125

  49

  145

  49

  Richmond upon Thames

  75

  61

  80

  61

  90

  51

  75

  59

  Sutton

  115

  67

  110

  62

  110

  68

  125

  65

  Waltham Forest

  245

  69

  235

  72

  235

  69

  235

  74

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  England

  53,300

  69

  55,500

  70

  58,100

  70

  58,900

  73

  London

  9,090

  69

  9,590

  69

  10,400

  68

  10,910

  70

  Inner London

  4,630

  70

  4,820

  71

  5,150

  71

  5,370

  71

  Camden

  295

  59

  300

  64

  330

  72

  315

  77

  City of London

  0

  0

  -

  0

  5

  -

  -

  -

  Greenwich

  375

  72

  425

  68

  465

  66

  510

  64

  Hackney

  445

  70

  480

  73

  490

  77

  495

  74

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  295

  68

  340

  62

  365

  63

  395

  52

  Islington

  405

  72

  465

  70

  545

  70

  530

  79

  Kensington and Chelsea

  215

  71

  225

  70

  215

  68

  235

  63

  Lambeth

  630

  78

  655

  69

  735

  71

  775

  75

  Lewisham

  490

  68

  465

  77

  495

  65

  545

  72

  Southwark

  600

  71

  610

  75

  600

  75

  655

  76

  Tower Hamlets

  265

  63

  250

  67

  280

  73

  270

  68

  Wandsworth

  350

  73

  325

  78

  345

  76

  365

  69

  Westminster

  270

  70

  270

  68

  290

  68

  265

  77

  Outer London

  4,455

  67

  4,775

  68

  5,240

  65

  5,540

  68

  Barking and Dagenham

  145

  71

  210

  71

  235

  66

  285

  59

  Barnet

  185

  68

  215

  66

  265

  55

  285

  60

  1580W 1581W

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  Bexley

  180

  58

  180

  69

  200

  66

  205

  73

  Brent

  310

  72

  325

  67

  295

  76

  320

  70

  Bromley

  235

  73

  250

  60

  250

  70

  295

  73

  Croydon

  330

  78

  365

  77

  395

  71

  480

  60

  Ealing

  350

  75

  370

  65

  430

  73

  410

  76

  Enfield

  210

  57

  255

  66

  250

  76

  275

  68

  Haringey

  350

  69

  355

  66

  435

  59

  460

  63

  Harrow

  145

  56

  155

  73

  175

  43

  180

  59

  Havering

  135

  77

  135

  51

  165

  55

  150

  77

  Hillingdon

  305

  63

  310

  56

  385

  53

  420

  70

  Hounslow

  260

  66

  240

  80

  255

  65

  320

  65

  Kingston Upon Thames

  95

  81

  100

  67

  105

  63

  95

  67

  Merton

  180

  68

  195

  71

  185

  70

  180

  77

  Newham

  445

  58

  480

  75

  485

  68

  480

  73

  Redbridge

  155

  54

  145

  61

  145

  66

  140

  77

  Richmond Upon Thames

  80

  71

  95

  52

  110

  51

  110

  62

  Sutton

  115

  62

  130

  63

  145

  69

  155

  78

  Waltham Forest

  250

  77

  265

  68

  325

  61

  295

  63

  2002

  2003

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  Number looked after3

  Percentage continuously looked after for at least 12 months

  England

  59,700

  72

  60,800

  73

  London

  11,390

  70

  11,740

  72

  Inner London

  5,420

  73

  5,350

  75

  Camden

  355

  64

  345

  63

  City Of London

  5

  —

  5

  —

  Greenwich

  540

  68

  555

  71

  Hackney

  460

  87

  455

  90

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  435

  68

  390

  75

  Islington

  485

  77

  480

  77

  Kensington and Chelsea

  240

  65

  240

  65

  Lambeth

  710

  78

  645

  83

  Lewisham

  550

  77

  565

  75

  Southwark

  655

  75

  680

  76

  Tower Hamlets

  330

  60

  330

  75

  Wandsworth

  365

  68

  365

  71

  Westminster

  285

  65

  305

  63

  Outer London

  5,970

  67

  6,390

  70

  Barking and Dagenham

  350

  68

  385

  67

  Barnet

  330

  65

  380

  67

  Bexley

  225

  64

  230

  69

  Brent

  360

  66

  355

  74

  Bromley

  325

  74

  310

  74

  Croydon

  575

  67

  680

  70

  Ealing

  380

  79

  410

  76

  Enfield

  300

  61

  310

  71

  Haringey

  465

  60

  520

  58

  Harrow

  165

  71

  160

  91

  Havering

  160

  72

  165

  57

  Hillingdon

  420

  62

  460

  60

  Hounslow

  340

  75

  320

  79

  Kingston Upon Thames

  80

  60

  85

  60

  Merton

  200

  65

  175

  72

  Newham

  550

  63

  675

  66

  Redbridge

  175

  66

  150

  65

  Richmond Upon Thames

  125

  73

  115

  81

  Sutton

  150

  79

  165

  89

  Waltham Forest

  300

  61

  340

  74

  1Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short term placements

  2Figures between 1 and 5 inclusive have been suppressed and replaced by a hyphen (-)

  3National figures have been rounded to the nearest 100. Regional figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. All other figures have been rounded to the nearest 5

  Source:

  Children Looked After by Local Authorities, Year Ending 31 March 2003

  1582W 1583W
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of children with parents who have learning disabilities were taken into care in each year since 1996 in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough. [168882]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: This information is not collected centrally.

  Marriage and Relationship Support
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reasons the funding application to the Marriage and Relationship Support programme by Care for the Family for a National Couple Support Network was turned down. [168162]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Care for the Family (CFF)— National Couple Support Network application was a partnership bid involving CFF and two other organisations. The objective of this project was to network with registrars and other agencies to access couples preparing for marriage and/or requiring relationship support. Although a strong bid both in presentation and concept, the application was rejected because of an overlap with pilot projects currently being funded by through the Marriage and Relationship Support (MARS) Grant programme.

  Nurseries
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education arid Skills how many new nurseries have been established in Birkenhead since 1997. [167647]

  Margaret Hodge
  Wirral metropolitan borough council is responsible for determining local need for nursery provision in Birkenhead and holding information on current provision. Under the Neighbourhood Nurseries scheme 348 new nursery places have been created in the Wirral, of which 175 are in Birkenhead.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education arid Skills how many new nurseries have been established in the London borough of Hillingdon since 1997. [168989]

  Margaret Hodge
  The London Borough of Hillingdon is responsible for determining local need for nursery provision in Hillingdon and holding information on current provision. Under the Neighbourhood Nurseries scheme 8,737 new nursery places have been created in London, of which 70 are in the Hayes Early Years Centre in the London borough of Hillingdon.

  Pathfinder Areas
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he expects to announce the results obtained in the 14 to 19 Pathfinder areas. [169453]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Report '14–19 Pathfinders: An Evaluation of the First Year' was published in January. A copy is available on the 14–19 pathfinders website www.dfes.gov.uk/14–19pathfinders and can also be accessed at www.dfes.gov.uk/research/
  1584W
  The second year's evaluation of the complete pathfinder programme, including Warrington's and the other phase two ones which started last September, is currently being undertaken. The Report is expected to be published in February 2005. In the meantime, we are monitoring all pathfinders 1 progress through their termly reports which they are required to submit as a condition of their receiving grant. We publish these periodically on the pathfinders website.

  Post-16 Education
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the names of the members of the working party on provision of post-16 education and training; how many times it has met; and what its remit is. [166718]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Working Group on 14–19 Reform was established in spring 2003, to develop proposals for the long-term reform of 14–19 learning. Its members are: Mike Tomlinson CBE (Chair); John Berkeley OBE, Senior Fellow and Director National Apprenticeship Monitoring Unit, SEMTA (Sector Skills Council for science engineering and manufacturing technologies); Simon Culmer, Operations Director, Cisco Systems UK and Ireland; David Eastwood, Vice Chancellor, University of East Anglia; Carmel Flatley (up to June 2003), Director of HR and Training, McDonald's Restaurants Ltd; Ian Ferguson (from July 2003), Chairman Data Connection Ltd.; Dr. Helen Gilchrist CBE, Principal, Bury College; Edward Gould, Master, Marlborough College; John Guy, Principal, Farnborough 6th Form College; Carolyn Hayman OBE, Chief Executive, the Foyer Federation; Colin Hilton, Executive Director, Liverpool City council: Professor David Melville CBE, Vice Chancellor, University of Kent; David Raffe, Professor of Sociology of Education, University of Edinburgh; Jennifer Slater, Principal, Northallerton College; Ken Spours, University of London Institute of Education; Kathleen Tattersall OBE, former Director General, Assessment and Qualifications Alliance.

  The Working Group has met 13 times to date. It was set up in spring 2003, following publication of "14–19: Opportunity and Excellence", the Government's strategy for reform of 14–19 learning, and asked to make proposals for reforms to achieve:
  strengthened structure and content of full-time vocational programmes, and to offer greater coherence in learning programmes for all young people throughout their 14–19 education;
  assessment arrangements for 14 to 19-year-olds that are appropriate to different types of courses and styles of teaching and learning, with the overall amount of assessment manageable for learners and teachers alike; and
  a unified framework of qualifications that stretches the performance of learners, motivates progression, and recognises different levels of achievement.

  Pupil Attainment (London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of 11-year-old pupils in London, broken down by local education authority, have reached level 4 in(a) mathematics and (b) English in each of the last seven years. [170496]
  1585W
  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows:

  Key Stage 2 test results for 1997–2003 (provisional), analysed by local education authority and Government Office Region

  Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above

  20031

  2002

  2001

  2000

  English

  Maths

  English

  Maths

  English

  Maths

  English

  Maths

  London GOR

  75

  71

  73

  72

  74

  70

  72

  70

  City of London

  97

  79

  93

  89

  86

  75

  79

  75

  Camden

  77

  73

  72

  70

  76

  73

  72

  70

  Hackney

  62

  58

  65

  65

  62

  60

  61

  60

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  77

  75

  74

  76

  77

  74

  72

  70

  Haringey

  66

  64

  65

  66

  67

  64

  63

  61

  Islington

  69

  68

  68

  67

  64

  65

  69

  66

  Kensington and Chelsea

  83

  78

  80

  79

  80

  79

  83

  80

  Lambeth

  71

  66

  67

  67

  68

  66

  68

  65

  Lewisham

  73

  69

  69

  66

  71

  65

  68

  65

  Newham

  66

  65

  63

  68

  65

  64

  64

  63

  Southwark

  69

  61

  66

  62

  65

  61

  65

  61

  Tower Hamlets

  73

  70

  70

  67

  72

  69

  67

  68

  Wandsworth

  74

  66

  73

  72

  74

  67

  72

  68

  Westminster

  78

  76

  77

  77

  77

  76

  77

  76

  Barking and Dagenham

  70

  68

  69

  73

  72

  72

  71

  70

  Barnet

  80

  78

  81

  79

  81

  77

  81

  78

  Bexley

  77

  69

  75

  72

  78

  71

  77

  72

  Brent

  75

  70

  74

  75

  74

  72

  74

  72

  Bromley

  83

  78

  80

  77

  81

  75

  80

  76

  Croydon

  77

  70

  74

  71

  75

  70

  73

  70

  Ealing

  76

  72

  74

  74

  76

  72

  72

  70

  Enfield

  76

  71

  73

  74

  74

  71

  72

  68

  Greenwich

  69

  66

  68

  66

  64

  61

  63

  62

  Harrow

  81

  76

  80

  79

  78

  74

  80

  76

  Havering

  80

  78

  80

  78

  79

  75

  78

  75

  Hillingdon

  80

  74

  78

  77

  81

  75

  78

  74

  Hounslow

  75

  72

  71

  71

  73

  69

  72

  69

  Kingston upon Thames

  81

  76

  80

  77

  80

  76

  80

  76

  Merton

  75

  66

  73

  68

  74

  66

  75

  69

  Redbridge

  77

  73

  78

  75

  77

  72

  76

  73

  Richmond upon Thames

  87

  82

  84

  83

  85

  81

  84

  81

  Sutton

  81

  76

  80

  78

  80

  72

  80

  74

  Waltham Forest

  69

  68

  66

  65

  68

  63

  66

  65

  England (all schools)

  75

  73

  75

  73

  75

  71

  75

  72

  Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above

  1999

  1998

  1997

  English

  Maths

  English

  Maths

  English

  Maths

  London GOR

  68

  67

  64

  56

  60

  59

  City of London

  81

  81

  89

  85

  80

  80

  Camden

  69

  70

  62

  58

  60

  65

  Hackney

  53

  55

  52

  47

  48

  49

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  63

  60

  61

  54

  58

  61

  Haringey

  60

  61

  56

  49

  55

  54

  Islington

  65

  65

  58

  51

  56

  57

  Kensington and Chelsea

  73

  74

  69

  58

  67

  66

  Lambeth

  62

  63

  56

  48

  52

  52

  Lewisham

  63

  63

  59

  52

  55

  54

  Newham

  54

  59

  51

  45

  48

  47

  Southwark

  58

  57

  54

  46

  50

  50

  Tower Hamlets

  58

  62

  51

  45

  47

  51

  Wandsworth

  65

  63

  64

  56

  61

  59

  Westminster

  70

  71

  69

  62

  63

  63

  Barking and Dagenham

  65

  68

  60

  54

  52

  54

  Barnet

  76

  76

  73

  66

  70

  68

  Bexley

  72

  68

  68

  59

  68

  65

  Brent

  67

  70

  64

  60

  61

  60

  Bromley

  77

  74

  73

  66

  74

  72

  Croydon

  71

  68

  66

  57

  63

  61

  Ealing

  70

  70

  66

  57

  62

  60

  Enfield

  67

  68

  66

  56

  59

  59

  Greenwich

  58

  59

  52

  48

  50

  51

  Harrow

  76

  72

  74

  65

  70

  69

  Havering

  78

  76

  71

  65

  71

  67

  Hillingdon

  75

  70

  68

  64

  66

  66

  Hounslow

  70

  67

  63

  57

  61

  57

  Kingston upon Thames

  79

  76

  73

  67

  72

  68

  Merton

  69

  68

  66

  53

  58

  55

  1586W 1587W

  Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above

  1999

  1998

  1997

  English

  Maths

  English

  Maths

  English

  Maths

  London GOR

  68

  67

  64

  56

  60

  59

  Redbridge

  72

  71

  70

  61

  65

  59

  Richmond upon Thames

  83

  81

  79

  74

  76

  75

  Sutton

  78

  73

  68

  61

  70

  66

  Waltham Forest

  62

  60

  60

  51

  57

  54

  England (all schools)

  71

  69

  65

  59

  63

  62

  1Provisional

  Pupil Behaviour
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what projects his Department has initiated to improve the behaviour and attendance of pupils in schools; and what the total budget for each of the projects is. [170026]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 30 April 2004]: The present Government spending on behaviour and attendance related activities and projects since 1997 is set out in the table.

  Grant/scheme

  Year

  Amount (£ million)

  Behaviour Grant

  1997–98

  10.4

  1998–99

  11.4

  Schools Inclusion:

  Puulic Support Grant (SIPS)

  1999–2000

  28.5

  2000–01

  69.1

  2002–03

  84.5

  Behaviour Improvement Programme

  2002–03

  50

  2002–03

  85

  KS3 Behaviour and Attendance Strand

  2003–04

  24

  Primary Behaviour and Attendance pilot

  2003–04

  5

  Positive Activities for Young People funding

  2003–04

  24

  Funding to EiC areas for Learning Support Units and Learning Mentors

  1999–2000

  17

  2000–01

  69

  2001–02

  103

  2002–03

  121

  2003–04

  134

  In December 2002, the Secretary of State launched the Improving Behaviour and Attendance Programme, a coordinated programme with various universal projects including the behaviour and attendance strand of the Key Stage 3 strategy, which provides all secondary schools with audit and training materials and consultancy support (and a primary strategy currently being piloted); new legislation is the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill to reinforce parental responsibility for behaviour and attendance, national truancy sweep campaigns; and the anti-bullying charter. Certain targeted schools, such as those in EiC and high street crime areas, receive more intensive support through the Behaviour Improvement Programme. BIP provides assistance to those most in need, though Learning Mentors; Learning Support Units; multi-agency Behaviour arid Education Support Teams; and police in schools.

  Pupils (Continence Problems)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the extent to which continence problems are a factor for exclusion in schools. [171131]
  1588W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This information is not available. My Department started to collect data on the reasons for exclusions from summer term 2003, but this does not pick up any continence or other medical-related exclusions. Pupils should only be excluded from school in response to serious breaches of the school's behaviour policy and if allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupil or others in the school.

  Return-to-work Skills
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many women in Wigan have visited an information and communications technology training centre in order to learn skills to return to work. [169361]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In the period October 20031—March 2004, 5,200 people visited a UK online centre in Wigan; 2,912 (56 per cent.) of these people were women. Since Learndirect was launched in 1999, 6,066 people from Wigan have enrolled on a Learndirect course. 3,331 (55 per cent.) of these people were women. Of the total number of women who enrolled on a course, 8 per cent. did so in order to learn skills to return to work.
  1Please note the complete statistics are not available for UK online prior to September 2003 as the DIES did not collect these data on a centre-by-centre basis.

  Rights of Access (Fathers)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the legal framework underpinning the rights of access for fathers to children following marital breakdown. [168412]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: The Children Act 1989 establishes the legal framework within which most separated parents are able to reach agreement about arrangements for the future of their children without recourse to the courts. However, it is open to any parent to apply for a contact or residence order, regardless of whether the parents are (or have been) married to each other. In all questions that come before the court about the upbringing of a child, including issues of residence and contact, the court is required to treat the welfare of the child concerned as its paramount consideration. In considering contact applications, the court will decide on the facts of each individual case what is in the best interests of the child. There is no automatic "right" of contact for either fathers or mothers. The interests of the child come first.

  The Government have no plans to amend the Children Act 1989 in relation to this core principle.
  1589W
  The Government recognise that the facilitation and enforcement of contact orders is a serious issue. I refer the hon. Member to the announcement I made on 19 March regarding the Government's response to the Children Act Sub-Committee Report 'Making Contact Work', and to the on-going work on the facilitation and enforcement of contact by the Department of Constitutional Affairs.

  School Computers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much public funding has been spent on computers for schools in Oldham, West and Royton in each of the last seven years; [170925]

  (2) how much money has been allocated to schools in Oldham West and Royton for information and communications technologies since 2001. [170931]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department does not collect information on school spend on computers at constituency level. However, Oldham, West and Royton is in Oldham LEA and in the last seven years schools in Oldham have benefited from the following funding through the Standards Fund grant for ICT (including match funding from the LEA):

  Allocation to Oldham LEA (£)

  1998–99

  570,322

  1999–2000

  651,147

  2000–01

  1,132,641

  2001–02

  1,244,258

  2002–03

  1,826,832

  2003–04

  1,828,641

  2004–05

  2,329,471

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much public funding has been spent on computers for schools in Bootle in each of the last seven years; [171125]

  (2) how much money has been allocated to schools in Bootle for information and communications technology since 1997. [171297]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department does not collect information on school spend on computers at constituency level. However, Bootle is in Sefton LEA and in the last seven years schools in Sefton have benefited from the following funding through the Standards Fund grant for ICT (including match funding from the LEA):

  Allocation to Sefton LEA (£)

  1998–99

  587,146

  1999–2000

  813,934

  2000–01

  955,931

  2001–02

  1,350,818

  2002–03

  1,890,315

  2003–04

  1,925,992

  2004–05

  2,492,326

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been spent on computers for schools in Preston in each of the last seven years. [168124]
  1590W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department does not collect information on school spend on computers at constituency level. However, Preston is in Lancashire LEA and in the last seven years schools in Lancashire have benefited from the following funding through the Standards Fund grant for ICT (including match funding from the LEA):

  Allocation to Lancashire LEA (£)

  1998–99

  2,500,000

  1999–2000

  1,627,867

  2000–01

  5,576,036

  2001–02

  6,483,142

  2002–03

  8,983,493

  2003–04

  9,169,124

  2004–05

  11,892,478

  School Results
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what procedures are used to(a) collect information on the results of (i) SATs, (ii) GCSEs and (iii) A levels from schools and (b) prepare that information for publication. [170312]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: We do not collect test and examination results direct from schools. The National Curriculum test results for Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3 are provided to the Department by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's National Assessment Agency (NAA). The NAA collect those results from the External Marking Agencies at the same time as the results are issued to schools. Similarly, GCSE and A level examination results come to the Department from the Awarding Bodies at the same time as the results issue to students and schools.

  To enable publication of accurate information in the school and college performance tables, we collate the test and examination results achieved by pupils and ask schools to check (and if necessary amend) the information held centrally by the Department. This relieves schools of the burden of providing all the information direct, while enabling verification that our data and calculations are correct prior to publication.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps have been taken to assess the validity of the methodology for producing school value-added results; and how the results have been verified. [170313]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: The methodology used by the Department for producing school VA results has been arrived at after a long process of development. This was initiated by the "National Value added project" commissioned by SCAA (a forerunner of QCA) which reported in 1997. The project, carried out by leading academics at Durham university, showed that it was valid to measure school value added using progress between Key Stage tests and public examination results.

  The findings of this project were used to develop a detailed methodology for the Autumn Package, which has been used by schools for self-improvement from 1998 onwards, and then piloted for the Performance Tables with a sample of schools within each key stage. As part of each stale of piloting, there was an extensive

  1591W
  evaluation process including discussing both methodological and practical issues with the pilot schools. This showed that that the methodology was broadly understood arid accepted as valid by schools. There followed a full consultation exercise, before rolling out publication of a key stage to all schools.

  At an early stage in this process the methodology was discussed at a meeting of the Education subgroup of the Royal Statistical Society.

  In producing the value added measures each year, the underlying pupil data on prior and current attainment is provided to schools for checking, to ensure that all results are accurate and have been matched correctly.

  Schools (Acts of Worship)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to ensure that schools meet their obligations in respect of daily acts of worship. [169805]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As part a the basic school curriculum, all maintained schools must provide a daily act of collective worship for all its registered pupils. Schools' compliance with this statutory requirement is considered as part of school inspections. Inspectors are required to report formally on compliance and their overall judgment on governance will take this matter into account.

  I am currently considering a range of proposals that are intended to help schools deliver their statutory responsibility on collective worship, and will announce the way forward in due course.

  Teachers TV
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what reports he has received on the impact of the Teachers TV pilot; and whether he expects it to go live as planned in August. [170463]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: The Teachers TV pilot was comprehensive, testing 44 programmes during February and March with a sample of circa 1,000 teachers, heads, governors and classroom assistants. We have recently received the research data.

  Once we have analysed the data from the research we will announce a decision on whether we will be proceeding to full channel launch. We expect to do this in June.

  Truancy
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will make a statement on the measures the Government are taking to deal with truancy; [169950]

  (2) what the most recent figures are for truancy rates. [169951]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Truancy is measured as the percentage of half school days missed due to unauthorised absence and stands at 0.70 per cent. for 2002/03. This is an improvement on the 2001/02 level of 0.72 per cent. and is equivalent to around 1,300 more pupils back in school each day. The 2002/03 level of 1592W
  school attendance of 93.17 per cent. is the highest ever recorded since national records began in 1993/94. These data indicate that the Department's Behaviour and Attendance Strategy, launched in December 2002, is making a positive impact on truancy. For example, 125 of the secondary schools supported by the targeted Behaviour Improvement Programme reduced truancy by 0.09 percentage points between 2001/02 and 2002/ 03—almost five times the national average. The programme is being evaluated and the good practice identified will be disseminated more widely. In this school year, we have made behaviour and attendance audit materials and training for staff available to every secondary school and we are piloting materials for primary schools in 25 local education authorities. In addition to providing support and good practice, for schools and their pupils, we are making it clear that we do not tolerate any unjustified absence from school. Since December 2002, national truancy sweeps have stopped over 50,000 pupils out of school, almost 40 per cent. of whom were judged to be truanting and, in about half of cases, the truant was with a parent. We have therefore introduced new measures, such as the Fast Track to Prosecution system and parenting contracts and penalty notices, to promote and reinforce parental responsibility for their child's school attendance.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  HIV/AIDS
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) whether combating the spread of AIDS in Africa will be a UK priority during its period of chairmanship of the G8 in 2005; [170514]

  (2) whether combating AIDS in Africa will be a UK priority during its presidency of the EU in 2005. [170599]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  In December 2003 the Government published their "Call for Action on HIV/ AIDS". The document was the first stage in stepping up our efforts to tackle the HIV/AIDS epidemic and sets out our clear intentions to provide high-level political leadership, to push for more resources to be made available and to work together more effectively with other donors. The Call for Action also signalled that HIV/AIDS, with a special focus on Africa, would be a centrepiece for our Presidencies of both the G8 and of the EU in 2005. DFID is currently developing ideas about how best to use our G8 Presidency to promote accelerated international action on HIV/AIDS.

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what joint activity within the EU is being undertaken to combat AIDS in Africa. [170598]

  Hilary Benn
  Joint European Union (EU) actions to combat AIDS in developing countries are carried out within the framework of the European Commission's Programme for Action (PfA), entitled: "Accelerated action on HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB in the context of poverty reduction". The PfA entails a series of actions to increase the impact of existing interventions to combat HIV/AIDS; increase the affordability of key
  1593W
  pharmaceuticals; and encourage investment in research for the development of global public goods to tackle HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria.

  In order to help increase the affordability of medicines the EC supports the provisions of the Doha declaration on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The EC supports a strategy of tiered pricing of essential pharmaceuticals, whereby consumers in developing countries pay only for the basic production costs of patented drugs plus a modest mark-up. During the last two years the tiered pricing concept has become widely accepted within the EU. A major achievement was the adoption in May 2003 by the Council of a Regulation to avoid trade diversion into the EU market of certain key medicines, sold at reduced prices in developing countries.

  In terms of increasing investment in research and development of specific global public goods to tackle HIV/AIDS and other diseases affecting the poorest, substantial resources have been allocated from the Research Framework Programmes for HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB research, including the establishment of the new European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) initiative. More information on the PfA is available at //europa.eu int/comm/development/body/eu_africa/docs/maladies_transmissibles_en.pdf.

  The EU is committed to increasing the impact of interventions to tackle HIV/AIDS. However, progress has been slow in terms of increased support for health. Notwithstanding the large price reductions obtained since the adoption of the PfA, only few have access to anti-retroviral medicines, and to effective TB and malaria interventions. The proportion of national budgets devoted to health, and donor support needs to be increased.

  Globally, the EC has been proactive in addressing the issues covered by the PfA, for example in the context of the G8, at EU/US summits, and at the EU/African Union Forum. The Commission also contributes to and is an active Board Member of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM). HIV/AIDS is among the priority development issues in the 2004–06 multi-annual strategic programme agreed by EU Heads of Government at the December 2003 European Council. The UK will prioritise HIV/AIDS and Africa during its Presidency next year. DFID is co-ordinating it's work closely with initiatives planned under the other five Presidencies during the 2004–06 period.

  Malaria
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what recent estimate his Department has made of the number of predicted fatalities from malaria among(a) key workers, (b) pregnant women and (c) children under five years in Sub-Saharan Africa in each year between 2004 and 2014; and if he will make a statement; [170300]

  (2) what recent assessment his Department has made of the change in the level of malaria fatalities in Sub-Saharan Africa. [170299]
  1594W
  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development has not made any estimates of the predicted fatalities among different groups of people from malaria. DFID looks to the World Health Organisation to provide a technical lead on such questions.

  Great progress was made in reducing malarial mortality in the 1970s and 1980s, yet many parts of Africa are now seeing an increase in the number of deaths from malaria. Malaria is Africa's leading cause of child mortality and constitutes 10 per cent. of the continent's overall disease burden. Approximately 3000 people die from malaria each day in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

  A key cause of the recent rise in malaria deaths is an increase in resistance to antimalarial drugs, and the lack of affordable alternatives. In addition the capacity of health systems in Sub-Saharan Africa is often inadequate to respond effectively to malaria.

  Nonetheless, malaria remains a disease that is preventable, treatable and curable. This Department remains strongly committed to meeting the Millennium Development Goal to halt and begin reversing the incidence of malaria by 2015, recognising the importance of malaria, not just in terms of disease burden, but also the potential it has to undermine economic growth and human development.

  Since 1998 DFID provided in excess of £110 million to support malaria control activities globally and at country level. At the global level this includes support to Roll Back Malaria; a $280 million commitment to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (which will fund distribution of insecticide impregnated bed nets and appropriate ant-malarial medication); support to the Medical Research Council; support to the Malaria Consortium Resource Centre; and initiatives to help find new low-cost malaria treatments,

  DFID also supports malaria control activities at country-level through our bilateral county programmes, either through direct support to the health sector or through general budget support. DFID is committed to supporting national governments and their partners to help ensure that effective drugs and commodities including effective anti-malarial drugs are accessible to the poor. Since 1997 DFID has committed £1.5 billion to strengthen health systems to deliver vital drugs and health care treatment.

  Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) domestic and (b) international representations his Department has received since 2002 concerning opposition to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. [170981]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Department for International Development received the following representations on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline:609 letters, either direct from a member of the public, or from/via an MP, or from an NGO,
  3,529 emails,
  8,587 campaign cards,
  and 11 Parliamentary Questions.
  1595W
  DFID also holds meetings with interested parties in the UK. Although some of the representations DFID has received relating to the Baku-Tbilisi- Ceyhan pipeline were from international organisations and individuals, the great majority ware from within the UK. Unfortunately our systems do not allow us to determine exact numbers of domestic and international representations without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Microfinance Projects
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money his Department spent on microfinance or microcredit projects(a) in total and (b) by continent in each year since 1997. [170465]

  Hilary Benn
  Access to financial services for people living in poverty is a critical condition for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Since 1990, DFID has been working, with many partners in the UK and overseas to broaden access for poor people to financial services, including microcredit.

  In addition to specific programmes that have microfinance as the central activity, DFID has supported many programmes within which microcredit has played a small but important role. In addition DFID has provided funds for research into microfinance, and innovation funding for new microfinance products. DFID has not maintained a central register of these various applications of funding for microfinance over the past 15 years.

  Since 1997, DFID has spent or committed in excess of £150 million on programmes where microfinance has been a core activity. Of this sum, approximately £70 million has been spent or committed in Africa, with the most of the remainder funding microfinance programmes in South Asia, East Asia, Russia and the Caribbean.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what discussions his Department has had with(a) the United Nations Development Programme and (b) other UN departments in advance of the United Nations Year of Microcredit in 2005; and if he will make a statement; [170466]

  (2) what discussions he has had with external organisations regarding the promotion of microfinance and microcredit as a priority during (a) the Prime Minister's Commission for Africa over the next 12 months and (b) the UN Year of Microcredit 2005. [170512]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID, alongside other donors, has for many years actively supported the development of policies and institutions to extend the outreach of sustainable microcredit and other financial services to the poor. As an active member of the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP), an international agency of 29 donors promoting best practice globally in the microfinance industry, DFID has been instrumental in linking CGAP with the organisers of the International Year of Microcredit.
  1596W
  The UN Capital Development Fund, and the UN's Secretariat's Department of Economic and Social Affairs, will jointly co-ordinate the preparation activities of UN system for the International Year of Microcredit. DFID officials have met with the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) Secretariat staff on three occasions in the last six months. In addition DFID has facilitated discussions between CGAP and UNCDF with the objective of enhancing joint messages on microfinance, and possibly jointly participating in events during the year.

  DFID officials have also met with Citigroup, one of the private sector sponsors of the year, and plan to meet with other international and UK organisations currently involved in the provision of microfinance overseas.

  DFID is committed to the growth of small enterprise, and issues of trade and growth are being considered as among the UK's priorities for the Presidency of the G8 in 2005. The first meeting of the Commission for Africa is being held on the 4 May, and this meeting will consider themes and priorities for detailed study. Support for promoting private sector development to accelerate the continent's growth is clearly a likely topic, and such support may have linkages with financial sector development objectives.

  Following additional debate with other donors, and through CGAP, the UK will further contribute to the preparations for the International Year of Microcredit. Following very recent discussions, Consultative Group on Aid for the Poorest (CGAP) has issued a set of "Key Microfinance Messages for the UN Year of Microcredit" as a contribution to international knowledge messages for dissemination during the International Year. DFID plans to support specific UN Year events in the UK next year, and hope to finalise and announce them in the autumn of this year.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which 20 non-governmental organisations working in(a) Africa and (b) Asia received the highest amount of grant from his Department for microfinance or microcredit projects in each year since 1997. [170467]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID provides financial support according to local needs and circumstances. DFID does not maintain figures to provide detailed comparisons between NGOs. A small NGO, with a few thousand borrowers living within a small locality, might benefit as much from a small DFID development grant as a large microfinance NGO, with hundreds of thousands of borrowers, might from a more significant grant.

  In Asia, many local NGOs have benefited from grants provided by DFID and other donors to "apex" organisations such as PKSF in Bangladesh, and the Small Industries Development Bank of India. DFID has also provided significant support directly to large NGOs in Bangladesh such as BRAG and Proshika, and to the Aga Khan Foundation in Pakistan.

  In Africa, DFID has supported both UK, international, and local microfinance NGOs. International organisations supported include Opportunity International, CARE International, Oxfam, and World Vision. Local NGO microfinance organisations supported include CETZAM in

  1597W
  Zambia, WEDCO in Kenya, and Concern in Malawi. Others include Sinapi Aba in Ghana, K-REP in Kenya, and CRESCE in Mozambique.

  DFID is seeking to build financial systems that work for the poor. NGOs are not the only route to achieve successful financial services. Private banks and other commercial institutions can also provide useful financial services on a sustainable basis, and informal mechanisms, such as rotating savings and credit clubs also have an important role to play, particularly in hard to reach locations. Finally, savings and credit cooperatives, in many developing countries, serve more poor clients than microfinance organisations. It is therefore important for DFID to support many players in the financial sector so as to achieve sufficient outreach to poor people, and to ensure financial sustainability.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has undertaken on the effectiveness of(a) microfinance and (b) microcredit programmes in (i) specific African countries and (ii) other developing world countries; and if he will make a statement. [170542]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID agrees that microfinance is a powerful weapon against poverty, and that access to financial services enables poor people to both increase their incomes, and to reduce their vulnerability to external shocks. DFID is committed to ensuring that microfinance is used effectively, both to create sustainable institutions, and to impact on the livelihoods of poor people.

  DFID has commissioned microfinance impact assessment surveys in many African countries, including Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia. Similarly, DFID has supported impact assessment in Bangladesh, India, Russia and other countries in Asia and Europe. DFID has also commissioned substantial international research activities into microfinance.

  Several UK academic institutions, such as the Institute of Development Studies in Sussex, are continuing this tradition of detailed research into the impact of microfinance. With the assistance of other international partners, such as the Ford Foundation, microfinance impact research more recently has been examining the wider impact of microfinance, in other words its impact on the local and national economy rather than just the impact on households participating in direct microfinance.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many women and children(a) worldwide and (b) in Africa his Department estimates have been lifted out of poverty as a result of microfinance or microcredit programmes (i) in total and (ii) in each year since 1995. [170543]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has supported microfinance for many years, as a means to allow poor people in developing world to escape poverty. However, microfinance is not a magic solution to the problem of poverty in the developing world. Even where detailed impact assessment has shown that microcredit has assisted a household to, say, increase its income to a level about a national "poverty line", there are invariably many factors at work simultaneously. The 1598W
  status of education and health, whether local markets function well, and the development of skills and competition, will all have a part to play in reducing poverty.

  DFID does not seek to estimate figures on poverty reduction by type or cause. In its 2003 "State of the Microcredit Summit Campaign Report", figures collected from some 2,500 microcredit institutions globally indicate that they have reached some 42 million clients among the poorest people in their countries. According to this source, of these poorest clients, 79 per cent. were women.

  On a regional basis microfinance is reaching many more people in Asia than in Africa. The challenge of expanding the outreach of financial services for poor people in Africa cannot be left to specialist microfinance institutions alone. Non-hank institutions such as post offices, savings and credit cooperatives, and building societies already reach many more people than microfinance organisations. Commercial banks are also expanding their outreach in many cases in Africa. DFID's objective it to contribute to the widening of the whole financial sector so as to better serve poor people in Africa.

  Safe Water Projects
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the(a) names and (b) funding amounts of projects aimed at improving access to safe clean water funded (i) directly, (ii) on a multi-lateral basis and (iii) on a bi-lateral basis by his Department in the last two years. [167771]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's overall aim is to reduce global poverty and promote sustainable development, in particular through achieving the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). DFID's goal in the water sector is to enable poor people to lead healthier and more productive lives by helping to increase and sustain their access to safe drinking water supply and appropriate sanitation.

  The recent Water Action Plan shows that DFID's total bilateral expenditure on water and sanitation was £82 million in 1999–00, £91 million in 2000–01 and £87 million in 2001–02. These levels represent around 6 per cent. of DFID's total bilateral aid budget respectively in each year. DFID channels a significant proportion of its assistance through multilateral organisations such as the World Bank and UN organisations (£1.3 billion in 2001–02). DFID's contribution to multilateral spending on water and sanitation is estimated at around £40 million per annum.

  The information on DFID's regional based development assistance to the water sector is currently being updated and will be available later this year. DFID's key focus at the moment is taking the Water Action Plan forward to help achieve the MDG's.

  Water and Sanitation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what analysis he has made of the implications of the World Bank Report, Global Development Finance 2004 for(a) public and (b) private financing of water and sanitation

  1599W
  infrastructure in developing countries, and if he will ensure that his Department's budget for 2005 to 2008 provides the UK's full share of the increases in public financing indicated as necessary by that report. [170036]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Department for International Development (DFID) endeavours to consider all of the latest information on the world 1600W
  economy and development finance, including the World Bank's Global Development Finance 2004. This information informs DFID policies and the methods that it uses to provide funding to developing countries, including for the water and sanitation sector. It also informs the budgeting process, and will therefore be considered in relation to DFID's budget for 2005 to 2008.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Buildings (Energy Performance) Directive
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made on implementing the EC directive on the energy performance of buildings; and if he will make a statement. [170971]

  Phil Hope
  Considerable progress has been made with preparing our proposals for implementation, which will be published this summer as part of the wider consultation on proposed amendments to the energy efficiency provisions in the Building Regulations. As indicated in the 2003 Energy White Paper, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister aims to bring these amendments into effect by the end of 2005 as part of our programme to reduce carbon emissions, and also in order to implement the Directive by the due date of 4 January 2006.

  Camping Sites (West Sussex)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent discussions she has had on exempting camping sites in West Sussex from revised planning controls. [170754]

  Keith Hill
  While DEFRA has policy responsibility for campsite certificates, under section 269 of the Public Health Act 1936, the responsibility for planning policy on campsites lies with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Currently, Part 27 of the "Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995" permits the use of land and the erection of tents by members of certain recreational organisations for the purposes of recreation or instruction, unless the land in question is a building or within the curtilage of a dwelling house.

  The hon. Member will appreciate, however, that I am not able to comment on specific cases due to the appellate nature of the First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Housing
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the change in the level of council funding for housing has affected the residents of Wigan since 1997. [169267]

  Keith Hill
  Since 1997 allocations of capital funding to local authorities for housing purposes have risen consistently by about 15 per cent. per annum on average. This includes the Major Repairs Allowance we introduced in 2001–02 specifically for the improvement of local authority stock alongside the Decent Homes standard which sets out minimum standards to be met 1602W
  by 2010. Wigan's allocations in the period 1997 to 2003–04 have risen by over 645 per cent. Wigan and Leigh Housing, an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO), was set up on 1 April 2002 to manage and maintain council homes on behalf of Wigan council.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of how the change in the level of council funding for housing has affected the residents of Oldham, West and Royton since 1997. [170877]

  Phil Hope
  Since 1997 allocations of capital funding to local authorities for housing purposes have risen consistently by about 15 per cent. per annum on average. This includes the Major Repairs Allowance we introduced in 2001–02 specifically for the improvement of local authority stock alongside the Decent Homes standard which sets out minimum standards to be met by 2010. Oldham's allocations in the period 1997 to 2003–04 have risen by over 430 per cent. following the creation of First Choice Homes Oldham, an arms length management organisation which manages and maintains council properties on behalf of Oldham council. These allocations have been supplemented by the announcement of £53.5 million to be made available to the Oldham/Rcchdale Housing Market Renewal pathfinder project between 2003£04 and 2005£06.

  Mortgage Repossession Orders
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the number of(a) home owners, (b) private tenants and (c) other occupiers who become homeless as a result of mortgage repossession orders in each of the last 10 years. [170634]

  Keith Hill
  Annual figures for the total number of repossession orders made since 1997 are as follows:

  Number

  1997

  57,056

  1998

  66,055

  1999

  60,194

  2000

  52,081

  2001

  45,723

  2002

  39,748

  2003

  39,732

  About three in five of such orders are usually suspended, and need not result in actual repossession so long as the borrower complies with the repayment arrangements set out in the suspended order. When an order is not suspended the parties can still negotiate a compromise to avoid repossession.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the support provided by central and local government to homeowners facing mortgage repossession orders in 2003. [170635]
  1603W
  Keith Hill
  229,000 people were assisted through income support for mortgage interest in 2002–03 at a cost of £320 million. Local housing authorities have a duty to ensure that advice and information about homelessness and prevention of homelessness are available free of charge to anyone in their areas.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the number of mortgage repossessions carried out in each of the past 10 years. [170646]

  Keith Hill
  The following figures cover UK mortgage lending by Council of Mortgage Lenders members. The figures for repossessed properties include those that were voluntarily surrendered.

  Properties repossessed by the lenders during the period

  Number of mortgages at the end of the period

  Number

  Percentage

  1993

  10,137,000

  58,540

  0.58

  1994

  10,410,000

  49,210

  0.47

  1995

  10,521,000

  49,410

  0.47

  1996

  10,637,000

  42,560

  0.40

  1997

  10,738,000

  32,770

  0.31

  1998

  10,821,000

  33,870

  0.31

  1999

  10,981,000

  29,990

  0.27

  2000

  11,169,000

  22,860

  0.20

  2001

  11,243,000

  18,280

  0.16

  2002

  11,360,000

  11,970

  0.11

  2003

  11,458,000

  7,630

  0.07

  Planning
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance his Department issues to ensure that local authorities take account of economic importance in planning decisions. [170380]

  Keith Hill
  A number of planning policy statements set out the important role which planning policies and decisions can play in promoting sustainable economic growth, for example, draft Planning Policy Statement 1—Creating Sustainable Communities—on which we are currently consulting. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently working on a revision of Planning Policy Statement 4—Planning for Economic Development—on which we expect to consult later in the year.

  The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has been amended to require the applicant in respect of a development which is designated as a major infrastructure project, to prepare an economic impact report if the Secretary of State directs. Details on the form and content of such a report will be set out in secondary legislation on which we will consult in due course.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the value of the contract with Robson Brown for each component of the Your Say campaign. [169257]
  1604W
  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 366W. With reference to the main components of the Your Say campaign, Robson Brown spend to date and projected future spend is as follows:

  £

  (a) Production and distribution of leaflets

  45,305

  (b) Posters

  120,000

  (c) Broadcast media

  438,560

  (d) Newspaper advertising

  54,894

  (e) Events

  67,303

  1TBC.

  These are not final costs. At this time, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is still awaiting final estimates for further paid activity, in particular any outdoor, and press activity.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) cost was in 2003 and (b) projected cost is over the next three years of staffing and infrastructure for each of the eight regional assemblies; and how each is funded. [166893]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Regional Chambers are voluntary bodies and not agencies or arms of the Government. They have specific responsibilities that are supported through the provision of Government grant, including: scrutiny of the work of the Regional Development Agency; acting as the Regional Planning Body; and the development and articulation of a representative regional voice.

  For the financial years 2003–2004 and 2004–2005 the levels of grant allocated to each Chamber are set out in the following table:

  Grant £

  Chamber

  2003–04

  2004–05

  East of England

  1,874,000.00

  2,112,000.00

  East Midlands

  1,631,000.00

  2,056,000.00

  North East

  1,408,000.00

  1,708,000.00

  North West

  1,837,000.00

  2,536,000.00

  South East

  2,186,000.00

  3,280,000.00

  South West

  1,613,000.00

  2,101,000.00

  West Midlands

  1,671,000.00

  2,071,000.00

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  1,655,000.00

  1,923,000.00

  Total

  13,875,000.00

  17,787,000.00

  Grant allocations for future years have not yet been agreed. In regions where elected regional assemblies are set up, the designated responsibilities of the Regional Chamber will pass to the new assembly, and Government grant will cease to be made to the Chamber.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold information on the staffing and infrastructure costs incurred by each Chamber.

  Some Chambers also receive funding from other sources within the region, including their constituent local authorities, through their payment of membership subscriptions.

  Retained Distribution Centre
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the annual cost of his retained distribution centre was in 2003–04. [169261]

  Yvette Cooper
  The annual cost of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's distribution centre was some £620,000 in 2003–04. This included £343,000 for fulfilling requests for ODPM publications and £277,000 for distributing other material to specific target audiences for individual projects.

  Roadside Advertising
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice his Department offers local authorities regarding the sale of roadside and roundabout advertising. [171122]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not give specific advice to local authorities regarding the sale of roadside and roundabout advertising.

  Scottish Power
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what occasions in the last two years Ministers in his Department have had meetings with representatives of Scottish Power. [164252]

  Yvette Cooper
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister nor any other Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has held meetings with representatives of Scottish Power UK Plc, on issues relating to the commercial interests of the company, during the last two years.

  Supporting People Overspend
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will identify by local area the impact of the savings expected to be made to meet the requirements of the Supporting People overspend. [167891]

  Yvette Cooper
  There has been no overspend of the Supporting People budget. The Supporting People budget was fixed at the total level of funding spent on housing related support as at the 31 March 2003 and has been capped. Given that the budget was much higher than predicted, the Government launched an Independent Review into the programme to look at value for money issues. The review found that £1.8 billion was too much to pay for the legacy programme with the result that the Government required authorities to make a small level of efficiency savings. The majority of these savings have been re-allocated back into the programme to pay for new supported schemes that came on stream in 2003–04.

  Undeveloped Land
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish figures for the estimated amount of undeveloped land zoned for industrial use in England. [171110]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  1911 Census
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when the contract was signed(a) to digitise and (b) to micro film the returns for the 1911 Decennial Census of population for England and Wales; when the census returns for 1911 will be made available to the contractors; and if he will make a statement about the progress which has been made with the 1911 Census project. [169821]

  Mr. Leslie
  The National Archives is beginning to develop plans so that the public will enjoy the widest possible access to the 1911 census returns for England and Wales when they are released in 2012. At the present time no contract for the digitisation or microfilming of the census returns has been signed.

  House Repossessions
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many house repossessions there have been in each region per quarter since 2002. [171164]

  Keith Hill
  I have been asked to reply

  The number of properties repossessed by lenders was 11,970 in 2002 and 7,630 in 2003. These figures cover UK mortgage lending by Council of Mortgage Lenders members and include properties that were voluntarily surrendered. Figures are not published on a regional or quarterly basis.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ethiopia (Anuak People)
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government propose to take pursuant to Article 2 of the 2004 Stockholm International Forum Declaration regarding the Anuak people of Ethiopia. [170047]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are concerned about the violence in Gambella and the loss of life among the Anuak people there. Our ambassador in Addis Ababa raised our concerns with the Ethiopian Prime Minister on 13 April and I plan to raise the matter with Prime Minister Meles in London on 5 May.

  EU Constitution
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what rights will be afforded to elected regional assemblies and parliaments under the proposed draft EU Constitution. [170183]

  Mr. MacShane
  The draft Constitutional Treaty does not intervene in member states' internal constitutional arrangements. However, the draft Constitutional Treaty does introduce a mechanism for national parliaments to monitor the application of subsidiarity, and provides for national parliaments to consult regional parliaments with legislative powers on the application of that mechanism.

  Iraq
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries to which Iraqi oil has been sold, stating the volume in each case; and if he will make a statement. [169156]

  Mr. Straw
  The Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organisation (SOMO) is the body responsible for the sale of Iraqi oil on the international market. Information on the countries to which Iraqi oil has been sold since April 2003 and the volume in each case has not been published by the SOMO and is not in the public domain.

  Information on the countries to which Iraqi oil was sold before April 2003 under the Oil for Food programme is available on the US Department of Energy—Energy Information Administration website at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t417.xls.

  Liberia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the success or otherwise of the demobilisation effort in Liberia; and if he will make a statement. [169901]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UN Mission in Liberia restarted the disarmament and demobilisation of all sides in the Liberian conflict on 15 April 2004. 18,415 fighters had already been disarmed since the conflict ended. Since April a further 4,924 former combatants have entered the disarmament and demobilisation process. There have been no reports of any major security incidents. In the long term, the real test will be how effectively those who have been disarmed and demobilised can be reintegrated and rehabilitated back into Liberian society.

  Sudan
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consult other members of the United Nations Security Council with a view to a resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter to address the situation in Darfur, Sudan. [169440]

  Mr. Mullin
  On 8 April the Sudanese Government and the Sudan Liberation Movement and Justice and Equality Movement signed a ceasefire agreement.

  Our priority now is to encourage the parties to implement the agreement. We do not consider that a Resolution under Chapter VII of he United Nations Charter would be appropriate. However we remain in close contact with other Security Council members about Darfur. The UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs briefed the Security Council about Darfur on 2 April, and we expect that there will be another briefing soon.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what developments have been made to establish a clear international mechanism to monitor(a) the attack on civilians and (b) the access of agencies providing humanitarian assistance in Darfur, Sudan. [169325]
  1608W
  Mr. Mullin
  The 8 April Ceasefire Agreement provides for a Ceasefire Commission, with a role for the international community. We hope that such a monitoring mechanism will help ensure the protection of civilians and also the effective disbursement of humanitarian assistance. We are in close contact with the parties and other members of the international community, including the African Union, to try to help set up such a monitoring mechanism as quickly as possible. The AU chaired a meeting on this matter in Addis Ababa on 19–20 April, and we understand that they are currently in consultation with the parties. We are in almost daily contact with the Government of Sudan and the Darfur groups about the crisis in Darfur.

HEALTH

  Drug Services
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his latest estimate is of the number of clients being managed by each drug service in England; and if he will make a statement. [163899]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department does not collect this information centrally.

  The latest national data for December 2003 show that there are 140,900 drug misusers in treatment, a 41 per cent. increase on the 1998–99 baseline. These figures indicate that we are on track to meet the Government's target of doubling the numbers of drug misusers in treatment by 2008.

  Food Additives
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to encourage the(a) reduction and (b) removal of additives from food. [166616]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that legislation on food additives is harmonised throughout the European Union. Food additives are only authorised following a rigorous safety assessment by independent scientific experts.

  As part of the authorisation process limits are established to restrict the level at which an additive can be added to food. These legal limits are set to ensure that safety levels are not exceeded and that additives are only added at the minimum level necessary to achieve their intended technological function.

  When additives are used in food, they must be declared in the list of ingredients, either by name or E number. There are no plans to encourage the removal of additives from food.

  Abortion
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pregnancies have been terminated at four weeks gestation in the last five years for which statistics are available; and if he will make a statement. [169011]
  1609W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Terminations performed at four weeks gestation in England and Wales.

  Number

  1998

  264

  1999

  290

  2000

  185

  2001

  169

  2002

  187

  Source:

  Statistics Division, Department of Health.

  The most common gestation period at which terminations are carried out is eight weeks.

  Agency Nurses (Weston Area)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent by the Weston Area Health NHS Trust on agency nurses in each year since 1997. [167525]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows expenditure by the Weston Area Health National Health Service Trust for non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff from 1997–98 to 2002–03.

  Expenditure (£)

  1997–98

  82,802

  1998–99

  138,981

  1999–2000

  164,014

  2000–01

  506,890

  2001–02

  1,306,195

  2002–03

  2,239,507

  Source:

  Annual financial returns of NHS Trusts1997–87 to 2002–03

  Autism
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of autistic spectrum disorder sufferers of working age who are in full-time employment. [167713]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have made no estimate of the percentage of people living with autistic spectrum disorder of working age who are in full-time employment.

  Blood Transfusion
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the revised approach to the Better Blood Transfusion Strategy will be published; [163478]

  (2) what progress has been made in implementing the Better Blood Transfusion Strategy. [163479]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since the publication of the Health Service Circular 2002/009, "Better Blood Transfusion—Appropriate Use of Blood", in July 2002 we have seen some improvements including greater participation in the serious hazards of transfusion reporting system and an increase in the number of hospital transfusion committees. As indicated by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health in his 1610W
  statement to the House on 16 March, the Chief Medical Officer is producing a revised approach to better blood transfusion and work on this is under way.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to identify whether there is a causal connection between the donor and recipient of the blood transfusion where a variant vCJD transmission may have occurred. [163613]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A paper by Llewelyn CA.et al (2004); Lancet; Vol.363, pp 417–421 reported more details of the possible link between a donor and a recipient of blood where variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) transmission may have occurred. The paper has been placed in the Library. This paper concluded that human prion diseases, including vCJD, may be transmissible through blood transfusion but that through the study only of natural disease can evidence of an actual iatrogenic (caused by medical examination or treatment) risk be identified. With the current extent of scientific knowledge, it is unlikely it will be possible to prove that there was a definite causal link between donor and recipient.

  Breastfeeding
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on promoting breast feeding in 2001–02 and 2002–03. [166465]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department produces a number of educational resources and promotional materials to communicate positive messages about breastfeeding to mothers, families, friends, health professionals and others in the community. The materials are available year round but are actively promoted during the national breastfeeding awareness week in May of every year. The awareness week is also the focus of specific regional promotional events.

  In addition, during 2001–02, the Department spent just under £1 mill ion as part of the infant feeding initiative, which provided support for 79 best practice community-based projects on breastfeeding and funded two part time national infant feeding advisers as well as other work related to promoting breastfeeding. The Department continues to have a national infant feeding adviser and the 79 projects have been evaluated. The evaluation will form the basis of best practice guidance to health professionals; to be launched at this year's awareness week from 9 to 15 May.

  The total spend on promotion of breastfeeding is shown in the table.

  Amount spent (£)

  2001–02

  1,115,000

  2002–03

  263,000

  Capio Healthcare (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) value and (b) target capacity for the independent treatment centre awarded to Capio Healthcare in Newcastle is; what types of treatment it will offer; and when he expects the treatment centre to be functioning. [168700]
  1611W
  Mr. Hutton
  The treatment centre at Newcastle is part of the independent sector treatment centre spine chain. The final contract has not yet been signed. It is expected that the treatment centre will open in April 2005 and will provide approximately 1,600 procedures per year for five years across a range of specialties including hernia repair, skin surgery, breast surgery, varicose vein, and ear, nose and throat and oral surgery; and 2,000 associated outpatient assessments.

  Carcinogen Exposure
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the Committee on Carcinogenicity's conclusions were concerning the relative safety for young girls and adult women of exposure to dioxins through the vagina; [168993]

  (2) what basis the Committee on Carcinogenicity concluded that (a) exposure to dioxins through the vagina would be a form of background exposure and (b) safe exposure to dioxins through the vagina should be measured on the basis of daily levels of absorption. [168951]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: The risk assessment of exposure to dioxins in young girls and adult women through the vagina has not been considered by the committee on carcinogenicity in food, consumer products and the environment.

  Chlamydia
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether it is possible to introduce chlamydia screening for all women aged 16 to 24 years immediately; and what the possible barriers to providing such screening are; [164862]

  (2) if he will estimate the cost of providing chlamydia screening for (a) all women aged 16 to 24 years, (b) all women over 16 years, (c) men aged 16 to 24 years and (d) all men; [164864]

  (3) if he will estimate the cost in 2003–04 of treating complications in chlamydia, including the cost of treating infertility; and if he will make a statement. [164871]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 March 2004,Official Report, column 1066W, which set out the reasons why the nationally chlamydia screening programme is being phased in rather than implemented immediately.

  Estimates of the cost of providing chlamydia screening for the groups stated are not available.

  An estimate of the cost in 2003–04 of treating complications in chlamydia, including the cost of treating infertility is not available.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 25 March 2004,Official Report, columns 1065–66W, on chlamydia screening, what the cost of implementing the programme in each of the primary care trusts has been so far; and what estimate he has made of the cost oft he third phase of the programme. [165676]
  1612W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The chlamydia screening programme incorporates 26 programmes, covering consortiums of 84 primary care trusts (PCTs). The cost of implementing each programme varies, dependant upon the size and the number of tests the programmes plans to undertake. The cost of implementing the programme in each PCT is not available, but the total estimated costs of the first three years of the chlamydia screening programme, from 2000 to 2003, are £13.5 million. The estimated costs for the third phase of the programme are £5.5 million over three years.

  Competent Authorities (EU Accession States)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the European Commission proposes to take in relation to accession states which are not compliant with their EU obligations, with particular reference to requirements on regulation and training in the health professions. [165903]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Commission's assessment is that training in all the acceding countries will meet minimum requirements after 1 May. It is for the Commission to determine what action to take in relation to any acceding countries which do not meet these requirements.

  Diagnostic Testing
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to encourage the use of diagnostic tests in(a) general practitioner surgeries and (b) pharmacies to reduce referrals to secondary care; and if he will make a statement. [169710]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is committed to improving access to diagnostic services in primary and community settings to prevent inappropriate hospital visits.

  Work is under way to develop the role of practitioners with special interests in primary care to undertake outpatient appointments and to help improve access to diagnostics and treatment. The National Primary and Care Trust Development Programme is providing specific support to strategic health authorities and primary trusts to help expand the range of services provided locally.

  The new contractual framework for community pharmacy, once agreed, will recognise the increasing role community pharmacies are playing in providing access to diagnostic testing.

  Elective Admissions (Manchester)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the levels of elective admissions to the NHS in Manchester, Gorton in the past five years. [167389]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not collected on a constituency basis, but at National Health Service trust level. Data for NHS trusts are shown in the table.
  1613W

  In year elective admission Episodes for Manchester NHS trusts, 1998–99 to 2002–03

  NHS Trusts

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  49,071

  47,969

  46,217

  n/a

  n/a

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  55,824

  58,663

  Notes:

  1. N/A—not available.

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

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

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Department of Health

  Elective Surgery
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has made available on the maximum amount of time that a patient seeking elective surgery should have to wait(a) for an appointment with a consultant and (b) for an operation following that consultation before being offered the choice of faster treatment in an alternative hospital. [170657]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: The NHS Plan sets out the maximum waiting time targets for consultant led services. As at 1 April 2004, the current maximum waiting time standard for first outpatient appointment following a referral from a general practitioner or general dental practitioner is 17 weeks. The maximum waiting time for inpatient admission following the decision to admit by the consultant is nine months.

  Choice of hospital for patients who are expected to wait longer than six months for elective surgery is being rolled out between April and August this year. "Guidance (Choice of Hospital, Guidance for PCTs, NHS Trusts and SHAs on offering patients choice of where they are treated)" issued in July 2003 sets out the responsibilities of national health service organisations in delivering choice of hospital to patients waiting longer than six months.

  The guidance advises that patients who are expected to wait more than six months for elective surgery should be contacted at the earliest opportunity and certainly before they have waited five and a half months. Patients may need to be contacted earlier to allow an offer of faster treatment.

  Strategic health authority plans for the implementation of choice of hospital for patients waiting longer than six months set out the local arrangements for offering patients faster treatment in an alternative hospital.

  Erectile Dysfunction
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the recorded incidence of erectile dysfunction was, broken down by age group, in the last year for which figures are available. [168445]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We do not hold information centrally about diagnosis of erectile dysfunction.

  Food Labelling
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Secretary of State has to replace sugar and carbohydrate labelling of food products with the glycaemic index. [167650]
  1614W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Nutrition labelling rules are agreed at European Union level and there are currently no proposals to introduce requirements to replace sugar and carbohydrate labelling of food products with a declaration of the glycaemic index.

  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) recommends that the amount of carbohydrate and sugar present be given as part of the nutrition label of a food product, even when such information is not required by law. Research shows that consumers value this information and would prefer it to be accompanied by an indication as to whether the level is high, medium, or low. The FSA is developing advice on how this might be done.

  Health Infrastructure Funding
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health infrastructure developments in England funded through the European Investment Bank in the last five years. [169806]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 30 April 2004]: In England, the European Investment Bank has part funded the private finance initiative (PFI) schemes at Dudley Group of Hospitals National Health Service Trust, East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust (Blackburn) and Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Health Ombudsman
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the guidance which his Department has given strategic health authorities for reviewing long-term care assessments in the light of the Ombudsman's report. [169230]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: No official guidance was issued. A suggested process to assist strategic health authorities was provided, copies of which have been placed in the Library. All strategic health authorities now have systems in place to review past continuing care cases.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to the answer of 1 March 2004,Official Report, column 703W, on Health Ombudsman's Report (Long-term Care), in which areas of the country the reviews of this issue have (a) been fully completed and (b) not been fully completed; [169231]

  (2) when he expects all the cases of people suspected of wrongly paying for their long-term care following the Health Ombudsman's report on the subject will be (a) reviewed and (b) resolved; [169232]
  1615W
  (3) how many of the reviews of long-term care have been completed; whether the deadline of the end of March 2004 was met; and when he expects all the reviews to be completed. [169233]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: All strategic health authority areas have some investigations outstanding. The Department has set no new time-scales for the completion of currently outstanding cases, or any further cases which may arise, but the national health service is expected to complete them all in a thorough and timely manner.

  Health Services (Birkenhead)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effect on residents of Birkenhead of the Health Development Agency. [166568]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The work of the Health Development Agency (HDA) is focussed on service delivery that supports the whole of the region's public health development.

  The HDA manages the national healthy school standard, which is part of the Government's national strategy to reduce health inequalities for children. The regional management of the programme is delivered in partnership with Sefton local education authority.

  The North West HDA organised the largest ever regional public health conference in March 2004 to address the problem of obesity. Over 300 regional public health professionals, including representatives from health services responsible for Birkenhead, learned of the latest obesity data for the region and collaboratively planned a regional obesity action plan. The workshop drew together best practice from across the region and in addition to the HDA guidance on obesity, this will provide the basis for local and regional work to tackle obesity in the coming years.

  The North West HDA is currently working with the North West public health observatory and the regional cancer registries to review the main causes of cancer related deaths across the region.

  The HDA, in partnership with Liverpool John Moores University and the North West public health observatory, is currently completing a regional report, "Alcohol: A Situational Analysis for the North West".

  Healthy Eating
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with the fast food industry regarding super size fast food portions and their effect on health. [160793]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The potential impact of super sized food on diet and health is recognised and we are committed to improving the dietary intakes of the whole population. I, and my officials, have met regularly with industry and their trade associations, as well as individual stakeholders, as part of the development of the food and health action plan. The consultation 1616W
  process on the public health White Paper will provide further opportunities for discussions with all stakeholders.

  Hip Operations
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hip operations in(a) North Yorkshire and (b) Sheffield he calculates could be done for £30,000 on the basis of the costs of such operations since January. [140571]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Figures are not available for the costs of such operations for the period commencing January 2003. However, based on the average cost for the financial year 2001–02, eight primary hip replacement operations could be carried out for £30,000 in national health service trusts in North Yorkshire. Six primary hip operations could be carried out for £30,000 in Sheffield.

  Source:

  Reference Costs 2002, Department of Health.

  Hospitals (Alert Status)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals were on(a) red alert and (b) amber alert status in the last month; and if he will make a statement. [167408]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not held centrally. The Department does not use the terms amber or red alert. Some acute trusts use the terms to indicate how busy they are and consequently what escalation procedures need to be taken to reduce pressures. Such escalation procedures are locally agreed and activated by the trusts themselves. The Department does not routinely collect information on when escalation procedures are activated.

  Immigrant Medical Inspections
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what additional and earmarked funds are made available to support the medical inspection of immigrants at(a) Heathrow and (b) other ports in England; and which bodies are in receipt of those funds; [156837]

  (2) what costs towards the medical inspection of immigrants service are met (a) from central Department of Health budgets, (b) through budgets held by the Health Protection Agency and (c) by primary care trusts from their standard allocations. [156838]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No data are collected centrally on the costs to the national health service of providing medical inspectors to carry out medical examinations of prospective entrants to the United Kingdom.

  Some other costs associated with medical inspection were met by the Department of Health, up to and including 2002–03, as shown in the table. From 2003–04, the budget from which these costs are met has passed to the Health Protection Agency.
  1617W
  A Cabinet Office review is considering the issue of imported infections and immigration, including health screening. We will consider when this review is completed whether any changes are needed to funding arrangements in support of medical inspection.

  £

  Port

  Who is reimbursed

  Total for 2002–03

  What is reimbursed

  Heathrow

  London borough of Hillingdon

  2,005,768

  Rent and administration costs, including clerical staff

  Gatwick

  Crawley borough council

  753,597

  Rent and administration costs, including clerical staff

  Stansted

  Uttlesford district council

  81,004

  Rent and administration costs, including clerical staff

  Manchester

  Manchester City council

  49,528

  Rent and administration costs, including clerical staff

  Dover

  Maidstone Weald PCT (meeting expenses previously met by the local authority)

  35,195

  Administration costs, including clerical staff

  Waterloo

  Home Office

  5,745

  Rent and utilities

  Hull and Goole

  Hull and Goole Port health authority

  4,888

  Rent and utilities

  Newhaven

  Brighton and Hove City primary care trust (meeting expenses previously met by the local authority)

  1,340

  Rent and utilities

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how port health responsibilities are reflected in the funding formula for primary care trusts; [156840]

  (2) whether primary care trusts hosting ports were subject to the same level of top slice as other primary care trusts when the Health Protection Agency was first established. [156849]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Revenue funding is allocated to primary care trusts (PCTs) on the basis of a weighted capitation formula which is used to calculate PCTs' target shares of available resources based on population size, age distribution and additional need and the cost of providing services. The formula does not take into consideration specific responsibilities such as port health. An explanation of resource allocation is in the booklet, "Resource allocation: weighted capitation formula". Copies of this booklet are available in the Library.

  The 2003–04 baselines for all PCTs were adjusted to take account of functions to be transferred to the Health Protection Agency, before the allocations were made for that year.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost in 2003–04 to the Hillingdon Primary Care Trust is for(a) employing staff at the Health Control Unit at Heathrow and (b) other added burdens created by the airport; and what additional central moneys are provided to cover these costs. [156842]
  1618W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Hillingdon primary care trust estimates the cost of employing the clinical staff at Heathrow airport Health Control Unit at around £750,000 in 2003–04. It is not possible to disaggregate accurately other coats associated with the airport. No additional central moneys are provided to cover these costs.

  Immunisation
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into(a) treatment of brain damage as a whole and (b) treatment of brain damage caused by immunisations. [166824]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department funds the national health service research and development programme, which aims to identify NHS needs for research and to commission research to meet those needs. Commissioning is undertaken through national programmes of research such as the health technology assessment (HTA) programme and new and emerging applications of technology (NEAT) programme.

  The HTA programme published "General health status measures for people with cognitive impairment: learning disability and acquired brain injury" in April 2001 as a monograph on the HTA website at www.ncchta.org after a project of a similar name completed at the University of York. The project cost just over £35,000. The NEAT programme has six projects with some bearing on treatment for brain damage; two have just ended. The total cost of the six projects is just over £1 million.

  There is no ongoing specific research into the treatment of brain damage caused by immunisations.

  The Medical Research Council (MRC), the main agency through which the government supports medical and clinical research, spent £835,000 in 2001–02 on brain injury research. The MRC also has a large portfolio of research relevant to the workings of the brain in both its normal and damaged state. The MRC supports a large amount of basic underpinning work on how the brain responds to injury of all types (including stroke) and neural regeneration, which will inform research on rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury.

  Inappropriate Prescribing
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the doctor s struck off by the General Medical Council's Professional Conduct Committee in each of the last 10 years for inappropriate prescribing of drugs to drug addicts, the year they were struck off, and the town or city in which their surgery or clinic was situated. [169293]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally, but can be obtained from the General Medical Council, which is an independent statutory body.

  Inventures
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the current status is of Inventures; when staff are to be transferred to a new company; and if he will make a statement. [169126]
  1619W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: The future of Inventures and its employees is still being considered. For the time being, Inventures retains its current status as the trading arm of NHS Estates, an Executive agency of the Department.

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) if he will place in the Library the conclusions of Pearl Brown's report into the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service; [165341]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 10 March 2004, Official Report, column 1606W, on NHS trust documents, what changes of policy took place between the date the Department obtained copies of the lone worker policy of the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service and the date it was asked to place a copy of Ms Pearl Brown's report in the Library; what his policy is on the documents and types of documents his Department is prepared to obtain at the request of honourable Members when those documents are not among those it routinely collects; why the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority has been able to obtain a copy of Pearl Brown's report; and what steps his Department is taking to ensure that recommendations made in Pearl Brown's report are implemented. [165479]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: There has been no change to the Department's policy on obtaining National Health Service documents. The Department would not generally seek to obtain copies of documents or information which it did not already hold. This approach is in line with the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and is consistent with the relationship between the Department and NHS organisations following the Shifting the Balance of Power initiative.

  The requested documents were provided because they were publicly available. The Pearl Brown report on the management of the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service is a confidential document. At the time of commissioning the report, Pearl Brown agreed that the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority (SHA) would receive a copy.

  The report was commissioned solely by the trust, and neither the Department nor the Cheshire and Merseyside SHA had any input to it. The responsibility for implementing the recommendations of the report lies with the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  Musculoskeletal Disease
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to include the management of musculoskeletal pain within the terms of the new general practitioner contract; and if he will make a statement. [166205]

  Mr. Hutton
  Changes to the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) of the new General Medical Services Contract will be negotiated between the NHS Confederation and the British Medical Association, following recommendations from an independent,1620W
  United Kingdom wide review group. The independent review group will decide what disease areas to consider for addition to the QOF.

  NHS Property Sales
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the cost to the Department was of the decision to terminate the sale of surplus NHS properties to Miller/HBOS, including costs borne by the potential acquirer, for which the Department will have to pay compensation; [168346]

  (2) what discussions the Department has had with Miller/HBOS about the compensation for costs incurred on the aborted property transaction. [168347]

  Mr. Hutton
  Discussions about levels of compensation are continuing. Once concluded any sums agreed will be declared in the Department's accounts.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Miller/HBOS were advised that the deal to sell them the surplus NHS sites would no longer go ahead. [168348]

  Mr. Hutton
  Miller/Halifax Bank of Scotland were formally informed by NHS Estates that they would not be proceeding with the proposed real estate partnership on 19 December 2003.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the proceeds of the sale of surplus NHS sites to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be; what they would have been under the aborted sale to Miller/HBOS; when the receipts will be received; when they would have been received from Miller/HBOS, and how many affordable houses(a) will be built and (b) would have been built on the site under the aborted sale to Miller/HBOS. [168349]

  Mr. Hutton
  Negotiations concerning the proposed real estate partnership with Miller/Halifax Bank of Scotland had not concluded when the decision was taken not to proceed and it is not possible to say what the final terms would have been, nor the timings of any payments.

  Discussions are still underway with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) on the timing of any transfer and the market value of the sites.

  The number of affordable homes to be built on those sites which are transferred will be determined by the ODPM and the planning process.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the current owners of each of the surplus NHS sites to be sold to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. [168352]

  Mr. Hutton
  All the properties are owned by the Secretary of State for Health, other than a small number where a leasehold interest is held.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that the proceeds of the sale of each of the surplus NHS sites should be given to the relevant local primary care trust or other local NHS trusts. [168353]
  1621W
  Mr. Hutton
  No. All of the sites to be transferred to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been identified as surplus for some time. The cost of managing surplus properties rests with central budgets and these are credited with the benefit of any receipts.

  Cash surpluses are added to normal allocations and passed out to the benefit of the entire national health service.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the proceeds of the sale of surplus NHS sites to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be(a) retained by the Department for use on (i) capital and (ii) revenue projects that it specifies and (b) allocated to the local NHS trust in the areas where land sales will take place. [168354]

  Mr. Hutton
  Proceeds from the sale of surplus land are treated as capital receipts. The net sale receipts, after holding and sale costs have been paid, is added to the overall capital allocations and passed out to the national health service. No funds are earmarked for use either locally or nationally.

  NHS Usage Statistics
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of people using the NHS in(a) 2005 and (b) 2010 who will be above retirement age. [165878]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government Actuary's Department forecasts that in 2005 16 per cent. of the population will be aged 65 or over, and in 2010, 17 per cent.

  Older people will typically make greater use of the national health service (NHS). In 2000–01 people aged 65 or over accounted for approximately 41 per cent. of total expenditure, despite accounting for only 16 per cent. of the population (Office for National Statistics). Assuming the same pattern of use, a similar proportion of NHS expenditure will be accounted for by patients aged over 65 in 2005, with perhaps a small rise by 2010. Derek Wanless, in his interim report on the long-term demographic and medical trends that will affect the health service, "Securing our future health: taking a long-term view", November 2001, commented that "the impact of ageing on future expenditure is likely to be comparatively small compared to other cost drivers".

  Nursing Provision
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) district nurses, (b) health visitors and (c) midwives there were in each Greater London NHS Trust in each year since 1997, broken down by (i) headcount and (ii) whole-time equivalent. [168941]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Obesity
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of excess deaths linked to obesity in each of the last five years. [169048]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not available.
  1622W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many different anti-obesity drugs are prescribed in the NHS; [169049]

  (2) how many prescriptions for obesity drugs have been issued in each of the last five years. [169057]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In 2003, six different chemical entities of drugs used in the treatment of obesity were dispensed in the community in England. However, Orlistat and Sibutramine (the two National Institute for Clinical Excellence-appraised drugs) accounted for virtually all the items (99.96 per cent. of total items).

  The table shows the number of prescriptions for obesity drugs issued in the last five years.

  Thousand

  Number of prescription items (obesity drugs)

  1999

  148.1

  2000

  162.3

  2001

  470.3

  2002

  738.9

  2003

  690.0

  Source:

  Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) data from the Prescription Pricing Authority.

  Heart Disease and Cancer
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on(a) heart disease and (b) cancer care in Stalybridge and Hyde in each of the last five years. [168770]

  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the revenue expenditure figures for NHS(a) heart disease and (b) cancer care in Warrington South was in each of the last five years. [168687]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Funding is allocated to primary care trusts (PCTs) on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. It is for PCTs, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on(a) heart disease and (b) cancer care in Heywood and Middleton in each of the last five years. [168489]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) and for Warrington South (Helen Southworth).

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of cases of lung cancer in England caused by radon gas. [169712]
  1623W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As with all types of cancer, it is not possible to attribute individual cases of lung cancer to a particular cause. However, from the known radiation risks, the National Radiological Protection Board has calculated that exposure to radon gas causes approximately 2,500 lung cancer deaths per year in the United Kingdom.

  Residence Criteria
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the NHS residence criteria are for entitlement to treatment; [169915]

  (2) on what occasions NHS staff are required to ask patients to state their country of residence. [169917]

  Mr. Hutton
  Anyone who is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom is entitled to receive free National Health Service treatment, subject to certain statutory charges, such as prescription charges.

  General practices check details of an individual's ordinary residence or previous registration before deciding whether to accept the person as a registered patient, either on a permanent or temporary basis. This is set out in Regulations and Guidance. For hospital services, Regulations require the NHS trust providing treatment to establish whether a person is ordinarily resident or if not, whether they are exempt from charges under a number of categories of exemption or liable to be charged. Guidance issued in April 2004 makes clear that in order to establish ordinary residence all patients should be asked the same residence-based baseline questions whenever they begin a new course of hospital treatment.

  Shared Service Centres
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Answer of 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 268W, on shared service centres, what assessment he has made of whether these services can be rolled out more quickly. [169654]

  Mr. Hutton
  An assessment of whether the rollout of shared service centres can be made more quickly is being undertaken at present. Whether this is practicable will depend on the anticipated level of demand from the national health service, the potential for new centres to be opened up and the timing of when existing accounting systems become obsolete. It is anticipated a decision will be made before a preferred bidder is appointed.

  Smoking
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in encouraging smoking cessation; and how much was allocated to each health trust for such services in the last year for which figures are available. [167858]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We are making good progress in helping smokers to stop smoking Latest figures show that, between April and September 2003, around 129,800 people set a quit date through the national health service stop smoking services, and over 68,600, or 53 per cent., had remained quit at four week follow up.
  1624W
  Health service circular 2002–012, issued on 18 December 2002, set out the financial allocation to NHS stop smoking services in primary care trusts for 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06. A copy of the circular has been placed in the Library.

  Solvent Abuse
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into the extent of solvent abuse by children. [169029]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on volatile substance abuse (VSA) among young people aged 11–15 years is collected in an annual national survey of secondary school children commissioned by the Department. Latest information is given in the statistical release, "Drug use, smoking and drinking among young people in England in 2003: headline figures", which was published on 31 March 2004.

  The Department funds the Department of Public Health Sciences at St. George's Hospital in south London to collect statistics on deaths associated with the abuse of gas fuels, aerosols, glues and other solvent based products. It produces an annual statistical summary of data. The sixteenth annual report highlighting mortality statistics for 2001 was published on 21 July 2003.

  The Department also funds the National Children's Bureau, which is working with `Childline' to analyse calls to the helpline on VSA. This work will provide qualitative data on issues relating to young people's misuse of volatile substances, which will also inform policy and practice on VSA.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of deaths of children caused by solvent abuse in each of the last 10 years. [169058]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Statistics, collected by St. George's Hospital Medical School on behalf of the Department, on the number of deaths of children by volatile substance abuse for the last available 10 years, are shown in the table.

  Number of deaths of children under 18 years by volatile substance abuse

  Deaths

  1992

  39

  1993

  30

  1994

  21

  1995

  32

  1996

  35

  1997

  29

  1998

  16

  1999

  25

  2000

  17

  2001

  25

  Source:

  St. George's Hospital Medical School: 16th Annual Report on Trends in Death Associated with Abuse of Volatile Substance 1971–2001—Key findings for 2001

  St. George's Hospital (Morpeth)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much land at St. George's Hospital, Morpeth, is to be transferred to English Partnerships for housing development; and what the(a) housing capacity and (b) value of the transferred land is. [168698]

  Mr. Hutton
  Discussions are currently underway to finalise the value of the properties to be transferred to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The area of land in St. George's Hospital which is included in the transaction is approximately 95 hectares. The housing capacity will be for determination by the new owners.

  Surgical Site Infections
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many surgical site infections there were in the NHS in(a) England, (b) each region and (c) each NHS trust in each year since 1997. [167431]

  Mr. Hutton
  These data are not available but aggregated data from the Health Protection Agency's voluntary surveillance system have been published in "Surveillance of surgical site infection in English Hospitals 1997–2002". Copies have been placed in the Library. This is also available at: http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/hai/SSIreport.pdf.

  Surplus Property Sales
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the sale of surplus NHS properties and Inventures to the Miller/Bank of Scotland Partnership. [169122]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: Following a decision by the Department not to pursue a real estate partnership with Miller /Halifax Bank of Scotland, an agreement in principle was given to transfer the surplus land to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). It was considered that a transfer of the property portfolio to ODPM would enable a greater emphasis to be given to addressing Government policy priorities for sustainable communities.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) transfer value and (b) size by hectare is of each of the surplus NHS properties to be transferred to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister outlined in his news release of 7 April. [169123]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department have agreed in principle to the transfer of the portfolio but the details of the transaction and the price to be paid have still to be settled. The land is currently being independently valued.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what valuations were used in determining the value of surplus NHS sites to be transferred to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and from what date. [169124]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: The terms of the transfer will be informed by the market value of the sites involved. An independent valuation is
  1626W
  underway to determine an overall value for the portfolio of sites. Sites will be physically transferred as and when they become vacant.

  Thimerosal
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what vaccines used in the UK contain Thimerosal; [162711]

  (2) when the use of Thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines was discontinued in the UK. [162712]

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the Government gave a commitment to phase out the use of thimerosal in whooping cough vaccine; [162205]

  (2) for what reason whooping cough vaccine containing thimerosal is still being used in the United Kingdom; [162206]

  (3) whether his Department has consulted (a) the US, (b) Japan, (c) Sweden, (d) Australia and (e) Spain as to the reasons why they have ceased using whooping cough vaccines containing thimerosal; [162207]

  (4) when the Government plan to phase out thimerosal in whooping cough vaccine. [162208]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 18 March 2004]: The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has written to manufacturers of vaccines used in the United Kingdom to alert them to the need to phase out the use of thiomersal in vaccines where possible. This follows advice from the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA), endorsed by the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), to phase out use of thiomersal, wherever possible, as a precautionary recommendation aimed at limiting avoidable exposure to mercury compounds.

  Manufacturers are actively developing research programmes to eliminate, substitute or reduce thiomersal in vaccines, and to develop new thiomersal-free vaccines. This may take time, because manufacturers need to ensure that thiomersal-free vaccines are safe and effective.

  The UK currently uses a wholecell containing whooping cough vaccine (which contains thiomersal) because this vaccine offers the best protection against the disease. Whooping cough is a serious disease in young babies that can lead to death. Also, there is strong evidence that thiomersal in vaccines does not cause neurological damage to children and the CSM continues to advise that the balance of benefits and risks of thiomersal-containing vaccines is overwhelmingly positive. The UK wi11 move to thiomersal-free vaccines when an equally effective alternative becomes available.

  Other countries have moved to acellular whooping cough vaccines because they cause lower levels of adverse reactions, such as a sore arm, in older infants than wholecell vaccines. In the UK, this is not an issue, as babies receive the vaccine when they are young.

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Thiomersal (also known as thimerosal) is present in the following childhood vaccines: the combined diptheria-tetanus-wholecell pertussis and Haernophilus Influenzae vaccine for
  1627W
  primary immunisation and the combined diptheria/tetanus vaccine used for boosting teenagers. Details of the vaccines used in the childhood immunisation programme can be found in the national health service Factsheet, Thiomersal and vaccines.

  Other vaccines that contain thiomersal are: Anthrax vaccine, some hepatitis A vaccines, some hepatitis B vaccines, some influenza vaccines and the diptheria-tetanus-wholecell pertussis vaccine.

  The use of thiomersal in vaccines has not been discontinued in the United Kingdom. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) recommended in 1999 that vaccine manufacturers phase out use of thiomersal wherever possible. This was a purely precautionary recommendation aimed at limiting avoidable exposure to mercury compounds. EMEA acknowledged that there was no evidence of harm caused by thiomersal in vaccines. The Commit tee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) endorsed this recommendation in 1999 and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation also supports the EMEA statement. There is strong evidence that thiomersal in vaccines does not cause neurological damage to children and the CSM continues to advise that the balance of benefits and risks of thiomersal-containing vaccines is overwhelmingly positive.

  In line with the EMEA recommendation, manufacturers are actively developing research programmes to eliminate, substitute or reduce thiomersal in vaccines. This may take time because manufacturers are required to ensure that the replacement or elimination of thiomersal does not affect the safety or efficacy of the final vaccine.

  Treatment Facilities (Manchester)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many rapid access chest pain clinics there are in Manchester, Gorton. [167390]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A rapid access chest clinic is located at Manchester Royal Infirmary, part of the Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there is a diagnostic and treatment centre in Manchester, Gorton. [167391]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is no treatment centre in Gorton. A treatment centre is located at Withington Hospital, part of South Manchester University Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Manchester Gorton are receiving drug treatment. [167465]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In 2000–01, there were 3,652 people receiving drug treatment in Manchester. This is the latest available data. Data broken down by drug action team for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are currently being finalised.

  Tuberculosis
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 12 February 2004,Official
  1628W
  Report, column 1700W, on tuberculosis, when the review of imported infections and immigration will be published. [169138]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 8 March 2004,Official Report, column 1334W.

  Waiting Lists
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of women in Heywood and Middleton with suspected breast cancer saw a specialist within two weeks in each of the last five years. [168490]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested. The following table shows how many and the percentage of suspected breast cancer patients, seen within two weeks of urgent referral by a general practitioner, at the Pennine Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust and its predecessor organisations for each quarter since the first quarter of 1999–2000. Earlier figures are not available.

  Waiting times for first consultant outpatient appointment for suspected breast cancer following urgent GP referral

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  1999–2000

  1

  Oldham NHS Trust

  100.0

  8

  1

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  39.6

  19

  1

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  81.8

  45

  1

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  85.0

  34

  2

  Oldham NHS Trust

  100.0

  n/a

  2

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  64.1

  25

  2

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  90.6

  29

  2

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  97.1

  66

  3

  Oldham NHS Trust

  100.0

  n/a

  3

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  70.6

  24

  3

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  75.0

  30

  3

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  58

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  100.0

  22

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  88.69

  32

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  94.5

  52

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  64

  2000–01

  1

  Oldham NHS Trust

  88.9

  32

  1

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  84.1

  37

  1

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  98.7

  74

  1

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  98.7

  74

  2

  Oldham NHS Trust

  97.5

  77

  2

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  72

  2

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  89.9

  71

  2

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  77

  3

  Oldham NHS Trust

  93.8

  76

  3

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  77

  3

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  93.9

  77

  3

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  93

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  97.1

  68

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  71

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  98.6

  70

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  88

  2001–02

  1

  Oldham NHS Trust

  98.7

  76

  1

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  85

  1

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  98.6

  68

  1629W

  Waiting times for first consultant outpatient appointment for suspected breast cancer following urgent GP referral

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  1

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  105

  2

  Oldham NHS Trust

  98.7

  75

  2

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  95.9

  71

  2

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  91.3

  94

  2

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  93

  3

  Oldham NHS Trust

  100.0

  106

  3

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  93

  3

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  79

  3

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  108

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  100.0

  84

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  54

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  66

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  107

  2002–03

  1

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.4

  357

  2

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.7

  357

  3

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.0

  383

  4

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  97.7

  334

  2003–04

  1

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.0

  389

  2

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.1

  366

  3

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.6

  449

  Note:

  Where patient numbers are below six the Department of Health does not publish figures in order to avoid patients being identifiable due to low numbers. Where this would apply, the table above reads n/a.

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMCW.

  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of women in Warrington South with suspected breast cancer saw a specialist within two weeks in the last year. [168688]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested. The table shows the number and percentage of suspected cancer patients, seen within two weeks of urgent referral by a general

  Patients waiting for elective in-patient admission

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  Month end

  Total number of patients waiting for admission

  Less than 3 months

  3–5 months

  6–8 months

  9–11 months

  12–14 months

  15–17 months

  18 + months

  March 1997

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  12,313

  5,778

  2,622

  1,920

  1,223

  616

  133

  21

  March 1997

  Manchester Children's Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,801

  952

  728

  528

  510

  79

  4

  —

  March 1998

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  12,531

  5,813

  2,454

  1,676

  1,217

  885

  486

  —

  March 1998

  Manchester Children's Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,260

  985

  908

  617

  666

  74

  10

  —

  March 1999

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  11,266

  5,654

  2,191

  1,614

  975

  622

  210

  —

  March 1999

  Manchester Children's Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,742

  849

  753

  542

  472

  118

  8

  —

  March 2000

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  11,040

  5,026

  2,489

  1,703

  1,039

  533

  250

  —

  March 2000

  Manchester Children's Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,639

  801

  687

  523

  370

  218

  40

  —

  1630W
  practitioner, at the North Cheshire Hospital national health service trust and its predecessor organisations for each quarter since 1999–2000. Earlier figures are not available.

  Waiting times for first consultant outpatient appointment for suspected cancer following urgent GP referral

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  1999–2000

  1

  Halton general hospital

  89.3

  25

  1

  Warrington hospital

  96.3

  105

  2

  Halton general hospital

  80.0

  8

  2

  Warrington hospital

  91.2

  103

  3

  Halton general hospital

  97.4

  37

  3

  Warrington hospital

  86.2

  81

  4

  Halton general hospital

  100.0

  30

  4

  Warrington hospital

  96.9

  94

  2001–01

  1

  Halton general hospital

  100.0

  30

  1

  Warrington hospital

  92.8

  77

  2

  Halton general hospital

  100.0

  26

  2

  Warrington hospital

  93.3

  98

  3

  Halton general hospital

  100.0

  25

  3

  Warrington hospital

  94.7

  126

  4

  Halton general hospital

  100.0

  37

  4

  Warrington hospital

  100.0

  113

  2001–02

  1

  North Cheshire hospital

  95.2

  159

  2

  North Cheshire hospital

  89.0

  195

  3

  North Cheshire hospital

  95.8

  137

  4

  North Cheshire hospital

  92.6

  162

  2002–03

  1

  North Cheshire hospital

  74.7

  145

  2

  North Cheshire hospital

  90.0

  243

  3

  North Cheshire hospital

  100.0

  181

  4

  North Cheshire hospital

  100.0

  155

  2003–04

  1

  North Cheshire hospital

  100.0

  184

  2

  North Cheshire hospital

  100.0

  141

  3

  North Cheshire hospital

  100.0

  169

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMCW.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change's there have been to NHS waiting list times in the last seven years for the residents of Manchester, Gorton. [167385]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  1631W

  Patients waiting for elective in—patient admission

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  Month end

  Total number of patients waiting for admission

  Less than 3 months

  3–5 months

  6–8 months

  9–11 months

  12–14 months

  15–17 months

  18 + months

  March 2001

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  10,742

  5,056

  2,432

  1,451

  826

  606

  371

  —

  March 2001

  Manchester Children's Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,634

  831

  603

  552

  373

  231

  44

  —

  March 2002

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  13,213

  6,028

  3,333

  2,136

  1,216

  500

  —

  —

  March 2003

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  10,822

  5,605

  2,832

  1,701

  684

  0

  0

  0

  February 2004

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  9,176

  6,487

  2,316

  373

  —

  —

  —

  —

  source:

  DH form KH07 and Monthly Monitoring

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents in Manchester, Gorton awaiting heart surgery have had the option of choosing an alternative hospital for quicker treatment in the last 12 months. [167388]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to record and publish waiting times for both diagnostics and treatment for all types of conditions. [169714]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data are not collected specifically on waiting times for diagnostic tests. However, depending on the setting in which the procedure takes place, patients waiting for diagnostic procedures may be included within the central waiting list returns.

  This is because waiting time data are collected on the consultant's main specialty, not by procedure. Diagnostic procedures may be included as part of the official returns as either an in-patient/day case, or as an out-patient—if it was the patient's first appointment with a consultant.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Loan Repayments
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make the provision of an analysis of a customer's ability to repay a loan an obligation on the lender; and if she will make a statement. [170640]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Our proposed reforms to the current law on extortionate credit bargains (which we will introduce when parliamentary time permits) will include a new test relating to unfair credit transactions. This new test will enable agreements to be more effectively challenged, and creditors who do not want to expose themselves to such challenges must ensure that the loans they make are not unfair. Responsible lending is a key part of this, and while the Government do not propose a 'one size fits all' regime for all credit providers, lenders will be expected to undertake enquiries that are proportionate in the circumstances.

  Bankrupt Businesses
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has undertaken into the number of UK businesses that have gone bankrupt as a result of being unable to meet their pensions obligations. [168891]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department does not hold any statistical data which would enable it to undertake any research into whether any UK businesses have entered a formal insolvency procedure as a result of being unable to meet their pension obligations.

  Banned Products
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consumer products have been banned from sale in the United Kingdom since 1994, stating in each case(a) the product, (b) the manufacturer or retailer and (c) the reason for the action taken. [168976]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on 11 March 2004,Official Report, column 1685W.

  Businesses (Sittingbourne and Sheppey)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what percentage of women in Sittingbourne and Sheppey have taken 26 weeks' maternity leave since 1997. [170294]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Take-up of maternity leave is not recorded centrally. It is possible to make an estimate of the numbers of women taking maternity leave based on employer returns to Inland Revenue for payment of Statutory Maternity Pay (since 2003 this has covered the first 26 weeks of leave). Figures for the take-up of SMP are not available on a regional basis, but nationally around 300,000 women receive SMP each year.

  In addition, there will be some women who will qualify for maternity leave but not SMP (because they do not meet the earnings criteria) and similarly some

  1633W
  who qualify for SMP but not leave (because they are employed earners for the purposes of SMP but not employees in order to qualify for leave).

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effects on residents of Sittingbourne and Sheppey of new rights for night-shift workers. [170296]

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

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

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

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

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of Sittingbourne and Sheppey qualify for paid leave entitlements. [170297]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  All workers resident in Sittingbourne and Sheppey qualify for paid annual leave entitlements; at least four weeks as set out in the Working Time Regulations. While all women are entitled to 26 weeks ordinary maternity leave, only those who meet the eligibility criteria will be able to claim statutory maternity pay for that period.

  All employees in Sittingbourne and Sheppey who are eligible will be entitled to take statutory paternity leave with pay and statutory adoption leave with pay.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of Sittingbourne and Sheppey have benefited from a reduction of the working week to 48 hours. [170298]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations provide workers with the right to refuse to work more than 48 hours on average, if they do not want to. Numbers for Sittingbourne and Sheppey are not available, however it has been estimated that around 400,000 workers resident in the South East stood to benefit from the introduction of the weekly working time limits in 1998.

  Christmas Day Working
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she has taken to ensure that employers allow workers to celebrate Christmas Day with their families. [170283]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Christmas Day is one of eight bank holidays in the UK each year. Employers are not obliged to give their workers time off on Christmas Day in addition to their paid annual leave, but many do so. Those workers not receiving bank holidays in addition to paid annual leave, can use some of their annual leave entitlement to cover bank holiday periods. The Working Time Regulations provide all workers with four weeks paid annual leave pro rata.

  However, the Government always tries to encourage employers to give their workers time off to celebrate Christmas Day and is especially keen for major retailers not to open on this day. The Government supports the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, which would prevent major retailers opening on this day.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will request the Insolvency Service and Small Business Service to carry out a study into the operation of insolvency law and practice in the construction industry to determine whether measures should be taken to protect small businesses from insolvencies among their creditors and customers. [168916]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  There are no plans for the DTI to carry out a study of this kind but the Specialist Engineering Contractors' Group has consulted the Department about the possible form of a study it is proposing to carry out in this area. We are yet to hear whether the study is under way but will assist as appropriate.

  Consumer Credit Applications
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new measures will be introduced by the Office of Fair Trading for improving the fitness checking of consumer credit licence applicants through access to criminal records. [170520]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  New procedures for checking criminal records are due to be introduced by the OFT this year. The OFT is currently finalising arrangements for the introduction of these new measures which will be announced later this year.

  Consumer Safety
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people have(a) died and (b) been injured due to faulty or dangerous consumer goods in each year since 1994, stating the (i) product and (ii) manufacturer or retailer in each instance and (iii) the action taken by her Department. [169167]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 28 April 2004]: Home accident data do not distinguish unsafe products as such, nor the manufacturer or retailer of the products involved. However, research commissioned by the Department on a sample of 11,998 accidents in four

  1635W
  separate years during the 1990s which included follow-up interviews with accident victims found that only 1.6 per cent. of fatal home accidents, 0.4 per cent. of serious injuries and 0.6 per cent. of minor injuries could be attributed solely to a fault with a product, including older products that had not been maintained or serviced properly or which had been used in a damaged condition. This represents approximately 60–70 home accidental deaths and 15,000.

  Employment Rights Advice Booklets
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 25 March 2004,Official Report, columns 962–63W, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), on employment rights booklets, at which of the three meetings of the practitioner group in June, July and October 2002 the members of the group were asked for their views on reducing the number of departmental employment rights advice booklets and leaflets in hard copy. [167281]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The practitioner group met on a number of other occasions. They discussed DTI reducing the number of publications available in hard copy on 19 June 2003.

  Estate Agents
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans site has to regulate estate agents. [170369]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department is currently considering the Office of Fair Trading report on estate agents, which includes recommendations about the future regulation of the industry. We aim to publish a response by 18 June 2004.

  EU Enlargement
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the likely effectiveness of the new competition system in Europe after enlargement. [168971]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The new EC Regulation on Competition was drafted with the specific objective of ensuring effective application of competition law across the EU after enlargement. The Commission is committed to reporting on the effectiveness of the new regulation five years after it comes into effect. Both the Commission and the European Competition Network will be monitoring the effectiveness of the new competition system on an on-going basis.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how consistency in compliance with new competition rules in Europe will be ensured across the EU after enlargement. [168972]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The National Competition Authorities of all member states are represented on the new European Competition Network which is working to ensure that the new EC Regulation on Competition is applied consistently. The Commission always has the option of taking up any case in which it feels that the ECN are not operating appropriately.
  1636W
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the new competition system in Europe is doing to protect small businesses in local communities from being forced to close as a result of competition from larger businesses. [168973]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  There are prohibitions on anticompetitive agreements and the abuse of dominance in competition law at both the EC and UK level. Through these prohibitions, competition law provides remedies to protect all businesses, including small businesses in local communities, from anti-competitive trading practices.

  EU Social Chapter
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effects of the EU Social Chapter on the residents of Sittingbourne and Sheppey. [170295]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The residents of Sittingbourne and Sheppey have benefited from the EU Social Chapter by having their employment rights extended to include:the right to Parental Leave which gives parents the right to 13 weeks unpaid leave at the birth or adoption of a child;
  the entitlement of part-time workers to the same pro-rata terms and conditions of employment as full-time workers, thereby removing any discrimination and improving the quality of part-time jobs;
  the provision that once a prima facie case has been made in an employment tribunal claim, the burden of proof is placed on the defendant (usually the employer), who will need to demonstrate that sex discrimination has not occurred;
  rights under the Fixed Term Work Directive that provide equal treatment and prevent abuse of fixed term contracts;
  rights under the European Works Council Directive which requires companies with at least 1,000 employees in total and at least 150 workers in each of the two member states, to establish structures for consulting workers on issues that affect them and;

  In addition, the Information and Consultation of Employees Directive to be implemented in the UK by March 2005, establishes a right to new minimum standards for workforce communication and involvement in large firms.

  Export Licences
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the UK arms export licences to Indonesia approved in 2004. [169153]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Since 1997 the Government has published an Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls containing details of all UK export licences by destination.

  Details of export licensing decisions taken in 2004 will be recorded in the 2004 Report.

  Family Friendly Employment Laws
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of family friendly employment laws in the past 12 months. [170286]
  1637W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The DTI has collected evidence from a number of sources to help in assessing the impact of the new employment laws which came into force in April 2003.

  Between December 2002 and April 2003 fieldwork was carried out for two DTI Work-Life Balance studies. Data was collected from employers and employees to provide a baseline for future evaluation of the impact of the new flexible working law. Details of the results can be found at www.dti.gov.uk/er/emar.

  In the first six months after implementation, CIPD and Lovells conducted research into flexible working which indicated that over a quarter (28 per cent) of employers had seen an increase in the total number of requests since April 2003. Seven in ten of the employers surveyed said they were willing to consider flexible working requests from all staff—not just those with children under six. 68 per cent. of employers believed that the opportunity to work flexibly had a positive effect on employee attitudes and morale. Full results are at www.cipd.co.uk.

  The Department commissioned questions on flexible working over a number of months in the Office of National Statistics Omnibus survey. The data was collected between September 2003 and February 2004. The results demonstrated that in the last year, around 900,000 parents have asked for a change in their working hours, equating to a quarter of all parents with children under six.

  Eight out ten often (77 per cent.) of those requests were granted in full, with a further one in ten (nine per cent.) partly accepted, or a compromise reached.

  Since April 2003, the proportion of flexible working requests being declined has nearly halved—from 20 per cent. before April 2003 to 11 per cent. after, which suggests that the regulations have increased employers' willingness to consider requests seriously. The full report is available at www.dti.gov.uk/er/inform.htm.

  Data on the impact of the changes to maternity pay and leave, as well as paternity and adoption pay and leave will become available in the summer, extracted from PAYE returns to Inland Revenue due in May.

  The Department continues to work with key intermediaries, such as Working Families and Maternity Alliance, to gather evidence through member/supporter surveys. It has also organised a series of roundtable events, currently being held around the country, which are engaging with parents and employers directly. The findings from this ongoing work will feed into the evidence base for a review of the impact of the legislation in 2006.

  Holiday Misdescribing
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints were made to the Director General of Fair Trading concerning the misdescribing of holidays by tour operators or travel agents in each year since 1997; how many such complaints were investigated by the Director General of Fair Trading in each year; and how many were upheld in each year. [168869]
  1638W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The OFT has not kept statistics of the numbers of complaints made to it about misdescriptions of holidays by tour operators or travel agents. In most such cases consumers are in dispute with the operator or agent and will be seeking redress for breach of contract and disappointment. In general they seek advice from their local trading standards service. They can also seek help from the Association of British Travel Agents which offers conciliation and arbitration services to help resolve disputes with its members.

  The numbers of consumer complaints made to trading standards departments about misleading claims, lack of availability, or lack of information relating to holidays in the UK and abroad, and, more specifically, about such claims made by travel agents, to 31 December 2002, is as follows:

  Holidays in UK and overseas

  Travel agents

  Total

  1997

  7,244

  1,022

  8,266

  1998

  7,234

  939

  8,173

  1999

  6,980

  1,824

  8,804

  2000

  6,818

  1,321

  8,139

  2001

  119,129

  1,374

  20,503

  2002

  7,820

  1,262

  9,082

  1Complaints in 2001 include a large number of consumer complaints about a single company that was operating a nationwide scam. The Company's activities have ceased.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints have been made to the Director General of Fair Trading concerning the conduct of travel agents and travel operators in each year since 1997; how many such complaints were investigated by the Director General of Fair Trading in each year; how many were upheld in each year; and how many and which, travel agents and travel operators have been banned as unfit to practice by the Director of Fair Trading since 1997. [168870]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The OFT has not kept statistics of the number of complaints made to it about the conduct of travel agents and tour operators. Generally consumers complain to their local trading standards services. While not specifically about the "conduct" of travel agents and tour operators, the total numbers of consumer complaints about holidays in the UK and abroad, and complaints about travel agents, made to trading standards from 1997 until 31 December 2002, are presented in the following table:

  Holidays in UK and overseas

  Travel agents

  Total

  1997

  18,387

  2,211

  20,598

  1998

  18,805

  1,984

  20,789

  1999

  16,523

  3,445

  19,968

  2000

  16,463

  3,192

  19,655

  2001

  33,531

  3,304

  36,835

  2002

  17,812

  2,887

  20,699

  Members of the Association of British Travel Agents whose conduct is in question are subject to its disciplinary code. The OFT has powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 to prevent conduct, such as breaches of contract or breach of the law, which harms the collective interests of consumers.
  1639W
  The OFT does not have the power to ban travel agents and tour operators. However travel agents or tour operators that offer credit agreements must apply to the OFT for a licence. The OFT considers whether a trader is a fit person to hold a licence and can remove a licence if it regards a trader as no longer fit. Worldscape.Net Limited, an internet package holiday company, was refused a consumer credit licence in 2003.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) complaints have been received, (b) complaints have been investigated and (c) prosecutions have been made under the (i) Package Travel Regulations and (ii) Timeshare Act 1992 in each year since 1992. [169374]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department has no enforcement powers in respect of either the Package Travel, Package Holiday and Package Tour Regulations 1992 or the Timeshare Act 1992. We do not investigate individual complaints under either statute.

  Generally, consumers complain to their local trading standards service who do have the powers to enforce elements of these Acts. The trading standards service collates statistics of complaints made to them. They are unable to provide figures from this sector which reflect action under specific pieces of legislation.

  The Office of Fair Trading maintains a register of returns of convictions under consumer protection legislation. Regrettably, however, the register is currently being upgraded and is incapable of producing accurate figures of the type requested at present. The Office of Fair Trading will write to the hon. Member when this information is accessible.

  Maternity Leave
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what percentage of women in Preston have taken 26 weeks maternity leave since 1997. [169669]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Take-up of maternity leave is not recorded centrally. It is possible to make an estimate of the numbers of women taking maternity leave based on employer returns to Inland Revenue for payment of Statutory Maternity Pay (since 2003 this has covered the first 26 weeks of leave). Figures for the take-up of SMP are not available on a regional basis, but nationally around 300,000 women receive SMP each year.

  In addition, there will be some women who will qualify for maternity leave but not SMP (because they do not meet the earnings criteria) and similarly some who qualify for SMP but not leave (because they are employed earners for the purposes of SMP but not employees in order to qualify for leave).

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what percentage of women in Wigan have taken 26 weeks maternity leave since 1997. [169319]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Take-up of maternity leave is not recorded centrally. It is possible to make an estimate of the numbers of women taking maternity leave based on employer returns to Inland Revenue for payment of Statutory Maternity Pay (since 2003 this has covered the 1640W
  first 26 weeks of leave). Figures for the take-up of SMP are not available on a regional basis, but nationally around 300,000 women receive SMP each year.

  In addition, there will be some women who will qualify for maternity leave but not SMP (because they do not meet the earnings criteria) and similarly some who qualify for SMP but not leave (because they are employed earners for the purposes of SMP but not employees in order to qualify for leave).

  Miners' Pension Fund
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government is taking to ensure that the Trustees of the Miners' Pension Fund protect(a) the pension and (b) the bonuses paid from inflation. [168566]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Members of the Mineworks' Pension Scheme and the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme should receive inflation linked increases to both their basic pensions and their bonuses to September 2006 and January 2008 respectively.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers in Preston have benefited from the national minimum wage. [169671]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide estimates specifically for the constituency of Preston. However, based on the Office for National Statistics' Low Pay data released in 2003, the DTI estimates that around 140,000 people in the North West stood to benefit from the introduction of the National Minimum Wage in April 1999. Between 130,000 and 160,000 people were expected to have benefited from the October 2003 uprating of the National Minimum Wage.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers in Wigan have benefited from the national minimum wage. [169318]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide estimates specifically for the constituency of Wigan. However, based on the Office for National Statistics' Low Pay data released in 2003, the DTI estimates that around 140,000 people in the North West stood to benefit from the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999. Between 130,000 and 160,000 people were expected to have benefited from the October 2003 uprating of the national minimum wage.

  Night-shift Work
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the benefits to residents of Preston of new rights for night-shift workers. [169668]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations came into force on 1 October 1998. The regulations limit working time to 48 hours per week averaged over a 17-week reference period. For night workers the limit is eight hours per day on average, including overtime where it is part of a night worker's normal hours of work. There is no opt-out from the night working time limit.
  1641W
  Night workers are entitled to 11 hours rest between working days, one day's rest per week, and a 20-minute in work rest break if the working period is longer than 6 hours.

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

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

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the benefits to residents of Wigan of new rights for night shift workers. [169321]

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

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

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

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

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the benefits to the residents of Oldham West and Royton of new rights for night-shift workers. [170940]

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

  Night workers are entitled to 11 hours rest between working days, one day's rest per week, and a 20-minute in work rest break if the working period is longer than six hours.
  1642W
  All night workers should be offered a free health assessment before they start working nights and thereafter at regular intervals for as long as they are working nights. The health assessments should take account of the nature of the work and the restrictions on a worker's working time under the regulations. Workers who suffer from problems as a result of working at night should, as far as practicable, be offered alternative day work.

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

  Paid Lease Entitlement
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of Wigan qualify for paid leave entitlements. [169322]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  All workers resident in Wigan qualify for paid annual leave entitlements; at least four weeks as set out in the Working Time Regulations. While all women are entitled to 26 weeks ordinary maternity leave, only those who meet the eligibility criteria will be able to claim statutory maternity pay for that period.

  All employees in Wigan who are eligible will be entitled to take statutory paternity leave with pay and statutory adoption leave with pay.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of Preston qualify for paid leave entitlement. [169667]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  All workers resident in Preston qualify for paid annual leave entitlements; at least 4 weeks as set out in the Working Time Regulations. While all women are entitled to 26 weeks ordinary maternity leave, only those who meet the eligibility criteria will be able to claim statutory maternity pay for that period.

  All employees in Preston who are eligible will be entitled to take statutory paternity leave with pay and statutory adoption leave with pay.

  Parental Leave
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many men have(a) requested and (b) received paternity leave in connection with the birth or adoption of a child born, matched or placed after 6 April 2003; and if she will make a statement on the success of the take-up of this entitlement; [169298]

  (2) how many women have (a) requested and (b) received maternity leave in connection with the birth or adoption of a child born after 6 April 2003; and if she will make a statement on the success of the take-up of this entitlement. [169300]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 29 April 2004]: Take-up of paternity, maternity and adoption leave is not recorded centrally. It is possible to make an estimate of the numbers of mothers taking maternity leave based on employer returns to Inland Revenue for payment of Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) which show that around 300,000 women receive SMP each year.
  1643W
  In addition, there will be some women who will qualify for maternity leave but not SMP (because they do not meet the earnings criteria) and similarly some who qualify for SMP but not leave (because they are employed earners for the purposes of SMP but not employees in order to qualify for leave).

  It will similarly be possible to estimate the numbers of parents taking paternity or adoption leave based on employer returns to Inland Revenue for payment of Statutory Paternity Pay (SPP) and Statutory Adoption Pay (SAP). Those returns are not due until 19 May 2004 and until the Inland Revenue complete processing them later in the year it will not be possible to provide the figures requested.

  Postal Vote
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce measures to ensure that postal vote ballot forms are efficiently despatched and returned to electoral returning officers in Inner London for the European, Mayoral and Greater London Assembly elections on 10 June; and if she will make a statement. [170271]

  Phil Hope
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the applicable election rules and regulations, the Greater London Returning Officer has overall responsibility for organising and running the GLA elections (which include the Mayoral election) and, in 2004, the European Parliament elections in the London region, and Constituency Returning Officers in London have responsibility for the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers for both the GLA and European Parliament polls.

  The rules stipulate that instructions to the voter should be included on the back of the Declaration of Identity form accompanying each ballot paper sent to postal voters in the GLA and European Parliament elections. Voters will receive a postage paid envelope for the return of their ballot papers by post. They are instructed to return ballot papers to the returning officer without delay by no later than the close of the poll, and have the option of delivering them instead to certain polling stations on polling day.

  Product Recalls/Safety
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many consumer product recalls there were in each year since 1994, broken down by(a) item, (b) manufacturer or retailer, (c) product category, (d) cause of recall and (e) cost of product; [168977]

  (2) how many product recalls in each year since 1994 were a result of (a) customer complaints to (i) manufacturers, (ii) trading standards and (iii) other, (b) accidents to consumers, (c) manufacturers' or retailers' decisions other than in the circumstances of (a) and (b) and (d) other circumstances; [168978]

  (3) what estimate she has made of (a) the number of companies with recall policies and (b) the cost to business of recalling a product. [168979]
  1644W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  This information has not been collected on a regular basis. However research commissioned by my Department into product recall (URN 99/125) estimated that in the period 1990 to 1996 there was an average of 42 consumer product recalls per annum. Over the period electrical goods accounted for 47 per cent. of recalls, non-electrical toys 17 per cent, childcare articles seven per cent., clothing seven per cent., houseware four per cent., furniture four per cent., gas appliances three per cent., personal care products three per cent. and others nine per cent. The main hazards for which recalls were made were electrical 25per cent, choking 15 per cent., fire/overheating 15 per cent., loosening or collapse 13 per cent., fracture nine per cent., electric shock six per cent., sharp object four per cent. and others 14 per cent. There is no corresponding information available about the names of the manufacturers or retailers involved or on the cost of the product.

  Customer complaints were the main trigger for 71 per cent. of product recalls, while eight per cent. resulted from contacts made by trading standards officers following complaints made to them by consumers.

  The research also shows that two thirds of the companies interviewed had recall policies.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on(a) the effectiveness of product recalls and (b) what her Department is doing to increase that effectiveness. [168980]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The effectiveness of a product recall depends on a number of factors including the type of product, its value and the way in which the recall is communicated to consumers. In November 1999 the Department, in conjunction with the Confederation of British Industry and the British Retail Consortium, published a guide ("Consumer Product Recall—A Good Practice Guide" URN 99/1172) aimed at helping businesses take prompt action to recall unsafe products from consumers.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies have been(a) investigated for manufacturing or selling unsafe products and (b) prosecuted since 1994; if she will state the (i) manufacturer or retailer and (ii) product in each instance; and how many companies have been prosecuted for failing to withdraw a product, stating the (A) manufacturer or retailer and (B) product in each instance, since 1994. [169148]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The number of prosecutions for breaches of consumer product safety legislation in the period 1 April 1993 to 31 March 2003 totalled 2,1841.

  Further information could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost by polling each of the 220 individual local authority trading standards departments.

  1Source:

  Consumer Safety Reports laid under S42 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on implementation of the General Product Safety Directive. [169150]
  1645W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department is in the process of transposing the General Product Safety Directive 2001. This is a difficult process, which we need to get right. It is taking time because of the complexity of some of the new provisions, especially the wording of the last resort power to order product recall. Here we are seeking to ensure that the provision is implemented in a way that is responsive to the needs of consumers while remaining balanced and proportionate to the risk. There have also been delays at the European Commission in providing guidance to support some important practical aspects of the Directive.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions since 1994 a manufacturer has appealed against a decision to recall a product; and in each instance if she will state the(a) outcome and (b) costs to her Department. [169151]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Recalls in the UK are currently undertaken on a voluntary basis, so the decision whether to recall a product is one for the manufacturer or distributor. The legislation that transposes the revised General Product Safety Directive (2001 /95/EC) will introduce a mandatory recall power in the UK for the first time. Following transposition producers will continue to be encouraged to act voluntarily where necessary. There are already powers for enforcement authorities to require companies to withdraw unsafe products from sale.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what occasions her Department has(a) given information to other countries regarding a product being recalled in the UK, stating the (i) product, (ii) manufacturer or retailer and (iii) the countries notified and (b) received information from other countries regarding a product recall, stating the (A) product, (B) manufacturer or retailer and (C) action taken by her Department. [169152]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  There are no historic records available on when and whether the UK has notified other countries of a voluntary recall undertaken by producers here or of recalls undertaken overseas and notified to us. However since January 2004 when the revised GPSD (2001/95) requires notification of both voluntary and compulsory measures the UK has received one notification from Germany about a voluntary recall. This concerned a children's jigsaw puzzle presenting a choking hazard. The Department has circulated the alert to the local authority trading standards departments.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the cost of maintaining an up-to-date schedule of regulatory impact assessments, with working lists to the relevant documents. [166453]

  Nigel Griffiths
  It is estimated that it would cost £1,000 to establish the page and add the Department's current and most recent Regulatory Impact Assessments. Maintenance costs are estimated as £1,200 per annum. The Department's Better Regulation Team has put work in train to create such a schedule on the Departmental website.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government has taken to help small businesses in Preston since 1997. [169679]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Business Link Operator for North and West Lancashire has provided assistance to 3,523 enterprises in the Preston Constituency since 2001. The Small Business Service (SBS) was set up as an agency of the Department of Trade and Industry in April 2000. Contracts were exchanged with a national network of 45 Business Link Operators (seven in the North West) to provide Business Support to small and medium sized enterprises from April 2001. Before this date Government support to businesses was provided through Training and Enterprise Councils and the Small Business Service does not have access to this data.

  1,024 of the 3,523 were pre-starts up enterprises, and in addition have provided assistance regarding Investors in people, specialist Business Advice, International, and E-Commerce.

  Seventeen companies have received and accepted offers of grant under the Research and Development Scheme (R & D) since 1997 to the value of £2,939,146.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government have taken to help small businesses in Wigan since 1997. [169316]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Business Link Operator for North Manchester has provided assistance to 1,981 enterprises in the Wigan constituency since 2001. The Small Business Service (SBS) was set up as an agency of the Department of Trade and Industry in April 2000. Contracts were exchanged with a national network of 45 Business Link Operators (seven in the North West) to provide business support to small and medium-sized enterprises from April. 2001. Before this date Government support to businesses was provided through Training and Enterprise Councils and the Small Business Service does not have access to this data.

  The type of assistance provided by the Business Link Operator to the 1,981 enterprises include business finance, environmental, workforce development, international, innovation technology and design, micro support, E-services, high growth, supply chain, and other account management assistance.

  Ten companies have received and accepted offers of grant under the Research and Development Scheme (R&D) since 1997 to the value of £530,540.

  Sixteen companies haw, received and accepted offers of grant under the Enterprise Grant Scheme since 1997 to the value of £689,500. The Enterprise Grant Scheme closed from the beginning of April 2004.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the benefits of the EU Social Chapter for the residents of Preston. [169670]
  1647W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The residents of Preston have benefited from the EU Social Chapter by having their employment rights extended to include:the right to Parental Leave which gives parents the right to 13 weeks unpaid leave at the birth or adoption of a child;
  the entitlement of part-time workers to the same pro-rata terms and conditions of employment as full-time workers, thereby removing any discrimination and improving the quality of part-time jobs;
  the provision that once a prima facie case has been made in an employment tribunal claim, the burden of proof is placed on the defendant (usually the employer), who will need to demonstrate that sex discrimination has not occurred;
  rights under the Fixed Term Work Directive that provide equal treatment and prevent abuse of fixed term contracts;
  rights under the European Works Council Directive which requires companies with at least 1000 employees in total and at least 150 workers in each of the two member states, to establish structures for consulting workers on issues that affect them and;

  In addition, the Information and Consultation of Employees Directive to be implemented in the UK by March 2005, establishes a right to new minimum standards for workforce communication and involvement in large firms.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effect of the EU Social Chapter on the residents of Wigan. [169320]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The residents of Wigan have benefited from the EU Social Chapter by having their employment rights extended to include:the right to Parental Leave which gives parents the right to 13 weeks unpaid leave at the birth or adoption of a child;
  the entitlement of part-time workers to the same pro-rata terms and conditions of employment as full time workers, thereby removing any discrimination and improving the quality of part-time jobs;
  the provision that once a prima facie case has been made in an employment tribunal claim, the burden of proof is placed on the defendant (usually the employer), who will need to demonstrate that sex discrimination has not occurred;
  rights under the Fixed Term Work Directive that provide equal treatment and prevent abuse of fixed term contracts;
  rights under the European Works Council Directive which requires companies with at least 1,000 employees in total and at least 150 workers in each of the two member states, to establish structures for consulting workers on issues that affect them and;
  in addition, the Information aid Consultation of Employees Directive to be implemented in the UK by March 2005, establishes a right to new minimum standards for work force communication and involvement in large firms.

  Thin Film Technology
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the levy is for thin film technology 1648W
  monitors and televisions imported to the UK; and whether the levy is standardised throughout the EU. [170039]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The import duty on imports into the EU on thin film technology monitors and televisions is 14 per cent. The Levy is standardised throughout the EU.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of the Huntingdon constituency have benefited from a reduction of the working week to 48 hours. [170848]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations provide workers with the right to refuse to work more than 48 hours on average, if they do not want to. Numbers for Huntingdon are not available, however it has been estimated that around 300,000 workers resident in the Eastern region stood to benefit from the introduction of the weekly working time limits in 1998.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of Oldham West and Royton have benefited from a reduction of the working week to 48 hours. [170942]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations provide workers with the right to refuse to work more than 48 hours on average, if they do not want to. Numbers for Oldham West and Royton are not available, however it has been estimated that around 100,000 workers resident in Greater Manchester stood to benefit from the introduction of the weekly working time limits in 1998.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents in Preston have benefited from a reduction of the maximum working week to 48 hours. [169666]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations provide workers with the right to refuse to work more than 48 hours on average, if they do not want to. Numbers for Preston are not available, however it has been estimated that around 300,000 workers resident in the North. West stood to benefit from the introduction of the weekly working time limits in 1998.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of Wigan have benefited from a reduction of the working week to 48 hours. [169323]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations provide workers with the right to refuse to work more than 48 hours on average, if they do not want to. Numbers for Wigan are not available, however it has been estimated that around 300,000 workers resident in the North West stood to benefit from the introduction of the weekly working time limits in 1998.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  Today I am delighted to announce that Her Majesty the Queen has approved the appointment of Andrew Bridges as HM Chief Inspector of Probation. Mr. Bridges' appointment will be for an initial period of 12 months. Through their expertise and rigour of approach the probation inspectorate have provided a major contribution to the national probation service. I am confident that Andrew Bridges will continue that tradition and that he will play a key role in monitoring the National Offender Management Service.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar)
  The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is a key institution of the Belfast agreement. We in Government want it to succeed and are committed to helping it to do so. It is in all our interests that we have a strong, independent and self-confident Commission, which draws support from all parts of the community. It is from this position that we are approaching the coming year.

  We have listened to the criticism of the Human Rights Commission. We have also listened to the other side, those who see the Commission doing the best job it can in difficult circumstances. We have thought carefully about the issues and how to address them.

  We will shortly begin a process to recruit a new chief commissioner and a full set of commissioners to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. We expect the process to take some months, with the new chief commissioner and commissioners being announced in the autumn. We propose to invite a number of those commissioners to take office soon after appointment. We will do this after discussion with the chief commissioner-designate, who will also be invited to join early. He or she will not become chief commissioner until the end of Brice Dickson's appointment. The remainder of the incoming commissioners will take office on 28 February 2005, at which point those who have served two terms will leave.

  We will begin this process shortly. In the meantime we will be working on the details of the process. We will use search consultants. An independent assessor will be involved throughout and there will be a human rights expert, alongside the independent assessor, on the panel that interviews candidates.
  74WS
  This does not mean that the current Commission is winding down. Far from it. They have a great deal still to achieve.

  From the outset, each commissioner has played an important role in promoting a culture of rights in Northern Ireland. They will leave behind an impressive body of work which I believe history will judge kindly. They have served in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, at times under great pressure. For this, they deserve our gratitude and our support in their ongoing work.

  For our part, the Government remain committed to establishing a broadly-based forum on the Bill of Rights. We will engage the political parties in a renewed effort to build consensus to this end.

  We understand there is much detail behind these proposals which people will want to discuss. I will be inviting the parties to put forward their views. I am clear that these discussions must respect the terms of the Belfast agreement and the independence of the Commission. In this context, we will also conclude the review of the Commission's powers.

  I would urge all parts of the community to work with us over the coming year. There are significant opportunities ahead to build on the great progress we have seen since in the field of rights since the Belfast agreement was reached in 1998. It is imperative that all parts of the community take those opportunities and everyone receives the same benefits.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Humanitarian Response in Darfur
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  The Government are gravely concerned about the situation in Darfur, Western Sudan. The UN estimates that the fighting has led to the internal displacement of over 750,000 people, with about 130,000 refugees sheltering in Chad. The civilian population is in a precarious state. Humanitarian requirements for food, water and shelter are enormous, but access remains limited. Civilian protection is a major concern with reports of systematic attacks on civilians, including killings, rape, pillage and destruction of livelihoods. The approaching rainy season, due to start in mid-May, will add to the problems, increasing the risk of epidemics and hindering the movement of relief supplies.

  The humanitarian ceasefire agreement, signed on 8 April, is a welcome step forward in resolving the crisis in Darfur. The parties must now live up to those commitments and allow international monitoring with full access to the areas and people affected.

  James Morris, Head of the World Food Programme, has just returned from a mission to Sudan. I met him on 4 May and discussed the grave humanitarian situation and the need for the international community to do more.
  75WS
  I have therefore today agreed an additional £10 million from our contingency reserve for the continuing and severe humanitarian needs in Darfur. This will bring total UK commitments for Darfur to £19.5 million. The UK is the second biggest donor to the Darfur crisis, after the US. Additional information on the UK response to date is set out as follows:

  OCTOBER—DECEMBER 2003

  Early assistance for organisations with some access (albeit very limited and variable) to Darfur:

  Save the Children UK (for North Darfur) £0.5 million

  World Food Programme £2 million

  International Committee of the Red Cross £1 million

  Assistance to refugees in Eastern Chad:

  UN High Commission for Refugees £1 million

  Total financial assistance October to December 2003: £4.5 million

  Continuing pressure on the Sudanese Government to allow humanitarian agencies unimpeded access to affected populations and security to operate, and to stop the fighting.

  JANUARY—MARCH 2004

  Following partial opening up of Darfur for humanitarian agencies, support to meet basic needs of affected population:

  UN Children's Fund £1 million

  Medecins Sans Frontieres (for South Darfur) £1.15 million

  GOAL (for North Darfur) £0.58 million

  Action Contre la Faim (for North Darfur) £0.25 million

  Additional assistance to refugees in Eastern Chad:

  World Food Programme £lmillion

  UN High Commission for Refugees £1 million

  Total financial assistance October 2003 to March 2004: £9.5 million

  Support to UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs to improve its co-ordination and assessment capacity in response to the crisis:

  Senior humanitarian adviser based in Khartoum for three months (extended to six months)

  Three humanitarian affairs officers based in Geneina, El Fasher and Nyala for three months

  One support staff for one month through International Humanitarian Partnership

  One focal point for UN co-ordination and logistics for one month through UN Disaster Assessment and Co-ordination team

  Continuing pressure on the Sudanese Government to allow humanitarian agencies unimpeded access, protect civilians from attack and agree a ceasefire with international monitoring

  Involvement in ceasefire talks between SLM/JEM and the Government of Sudan in N'Djamena.

  APRIL 2004 ONWARDS

  Oxfam (for North and South Darfur) £2.2 million

  Planned further contributions to UN and other international organisations

  Total financial assistance to date: £11.7 million

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Water Pollution
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  The Chancellor confirmed in his pre-Budget report that we would be launching a consultation on developing measures to address diffuse water pollution from agriculture in the early part of this year.

  The synergies between agriculture and environment are key to sustainable development. Given our desire to gain maximum value from a wide-ranging consultation on how best to both increase the sustainability of English agriculture and ensure it plays its part in making water in England as clean and as healthy as practicable, we will now be publishing this consultation on 17 June.

TREASURY

  Debt Management Office
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  The Debt Management Office (DMO) is today publishing its business plan for 2004–05. The DMO's targets for 2004–05 are set out in the business plan. A brief commentary on last year's outturn in relation to the comparable targets will be included in the DMO's report and accounts for 2003–04. A copy of the business plan has been placed in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Operating and Financial Review
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  I am launching today a consultation on draft regulations for a statutory operating and financial review (OFR), following a recommendation of the company law review and proposals set out in the Government's White Paper "Modernising Company Law" of July 2002. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and the Vote Office.

  The OFR regulations will require quoted companies to provide a narrative report setting out the company's business objectives, its strategy for achieving them and the risks and uncertainties that might affect their achievement. It will require companies to report on other matters where these are necessary for an understanding of the business. These matters include employees, the envirc nment and social and community issues. It is proposed that where directors believe that they have nothing to report on those matters, they will have to state that fact. The OFR will represent a move from reporting on past performance to an assessment of the future prospects of the company in both the short and the long term. It will enable shareholders to judge whether the directors' view of the business meets their own long-term investment needs and their own expectations of the way good companies should perform—companies that understand the importance of human capital, open dealings with customers and suppliers, and their impact on the environment and on the wider community.
  77WS
  The OFR will apply to all quoted companies. These are companies registered in Great Britain that are either listed in the UK or in any other European economic area (EEA) state or whose shares ate traded on the New York stock exchange or NASDAQ. The regulations also implement related changes to the directors' report of other companies required by the Accounts Modernisation Directive.

  A number of quoted companies already prepare OFRs or adopt the broad approach set out in a guidance statement originally introduced by the Accounting Standards Board in 1993 and revised in 2003. The directors of those companies recognise that such reporting can contribute to the profile of the company and offer the market confidence about its management and prospects. The OFR regulations will provide directors with the opportunity to provide key information to shareholders within a statutory regime that will give reassurance on the quality of the information provided. It will enable the best companies to maintain and promote their high standards while allowing other companies to raise their standards. It will contribute to market stability, shareholder engagement, investment, company performance and corporate social responsibility. It will facilitate informed dialogue between directors and shareholders, encouraging responsible institutional investors to adopt an understanding of the particular businesses their investments rely upon.

  The Accounting Standards Board will be preparing a new reporting standard for the OFR. In addition, alongside the consultation, a working group chaired by Rosemary Radcliffe and representing a range of business, investor and wider interests, is publishing practical guidance for directors on the preparation of the OFR. I am extremely grateful to the working group for the hard work it has undertaken on this essential element of the OFR.

  The consultation period will end on 6 August. After taking into account responses to the consultation, I intend to lay the regulations before the end of the year, so that they can apply to accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. I hope that all those interested in this issue will respond to our consultation and help us ensure that the OFR is an effective tool.

  Special Shares (Energy Companies)
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  I wish to inform the House about the Government's decision on the future of special shares held in the British Energy Group, Nuclear Generation Decommissioning Fund Limited, National Grid Transco plc, Viridian, Phoenix Natural Gas, Scottish Power, and Scottish and Southern Energy.

  The Secretary of State for Scotland and I jointly hold a special share in British Energy plc. I hold a special share in British Energy's English operating subsidiary, British Energy Generation Limited, and the Secretary of State for Scotland holds a special share in the Scottish operating subsidiary, British Energy Generation (UK) Limited. I also hold a special share in the Nuclear Generation Decommissioning Fund Limited (NGDF) that would be subsumed into the new Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF) being created as part of the proposed restructuring of British Energy. In addition, I also hold
  78WS
  a special share in National Grid Transco plc. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland holds special shares in Viridian and in Phoenix Natural Gas. The Secretary of State for Scotland holds special shares in Scottish Power, and Scottish and Southern Energy.

  Special shares in these companies require the consent of the relevant Minister for certain significant decisions affecting shareholdings, the structure of the company or disposal of certain assets. In particular, Government consent is required for any move that would allow a single person to own more than 15 per cent. in any of the companies.

  We have been considering carefully the future of these shares that date back to the original privatisation of the companies in the light of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgments on special shares (including BAA) on 13 May 2003, and, in the case of British Energy, the proposed restructuring of the company. The Government have concluded that the current legal and regulatory framework now provides adequate protection of the public policy objectives, which the special shares were initially set up to cover. We will maintain only those that can be justified and are necessary in the public interest.

  Taking account of the ECJ judgments, the Government have decided to redeem the special shares held in National Grid Transco plc, Viridian, Phoenix Natural Gas, Scottish Power, and Scottish and Southern Energy.

  The Government have decided, however, that it would be justifiable to retain two key provisions of the British Energy special share: first, to require anyone who has purchased more than 15 per cent. of the issued shares of British Energy to obtain the Government's consent; and, secondly, to require the consent of the appropriate Secretary of State for any disposal of a nuclear-station by British Energy. It is proposed that both provisions will be amended to provide that Government consent may be refused only on national security grounds. The nuclear security regime operated by the Department's Office for Civil Nuclear Security is robust and comprehensive, and is designed to prevent unauthorised access to nuclear stations or nuclear material falling into inappropriate hands. But in the context of nuclear energy we believe it is justified and proportionate to the risks involved to retain these two particular special share provisions in the companies of the British Energy Group.

  Other provisions of the special shares in the British Energy Group would be given up on the same basis as for the conventional electricity companies. In the light of the ECJ judgment in would not be justified to retain general powers over the commercial operations of the company. These rights have not protected, and will not protect, the Government's economic interest in British Energy. This interest arises from the Government's ultimate responsibility to ensure safe management and funding of BE's nuclear liabilities, which would always fall to the Government in the last resort given their duty to safeguard nuclear safety, security and environmental protection. For the future, it is the contractual arrangements we are putting in place as part of the restructuring that would compel British Energy to

  79WS
  contribute to its liabilities and help minimise demands on the taxpayer, and enable us to monitor the performance of the company.

  The special share in the NGDF will be retained and carried forward into the NLF if British Energy's restructuring is successful. The special share contributes to the protection of the Government's significant interest in ensuring that the NGDF/NLF Company achieves its purpose of receiving, investing and ultimately paying out moneys for the decommissioning of British Energy's nuclear power stations.

DEFENCE

  Future Rapid Effect System (FRES)
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Ministry of Defence has approved the launch of a two-year assessment phase for the future rapid effect system (FRES). FRES is the most significant armoured vehicle project for the next decade. It is central to the Army's future force structure, providing a family of network-capable armoured vehicles as part of a coherent and highly deployable medium-weight force. It will deliver a step-change in the capability of our forces to meet the challenges of future expeditionary operations. FRES is also intended to meet the need to replace a number of in-service vehicles, such as SAXON, with modern, battle-winning equipment.

  The assessment phase will be led by a systems house, independent of product or manufacturing capability, selected for their programme management, risk management and systems engineering capabilities. The successful candidate will be selected via competition and a contract should be placed in late 2004. The systems house will provide an objective view of ideas and technologies, which may be applicable to FRES, and of the risks inherent in complex "system of systems" integration. It will exploit and build on previous work wherever possible. In addition, as part of an incremental acquisition approach, the assessment phase will include a range of risk reduction and technology demonstration work to examine the risks of relevant technologies and to determine if they are suitable for FRES, allowing the insertion of new technologies as they mature.

  The FRES project also provides excellent opportunities for UK defence industry to engage in the programme in line with defence industrial policy. The assessment phase will reach as wide and deep as possible to harness the broadest range of industrial capability, creativity and innovation. The systems house will therefore need to work closely with companies in the armoured fighting vehicle and other related sectors to draw on their expertise. There will also be opportunities for such companies to participate in the technology demonstration work during the assessment phase.
  80WS
  Options for future phases of the programme have deliberately been kept open, but the way forward for FRES announced today provides the right foundations for the project and for the successful delivery of this important capability.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Housing
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
  I am today announcing my approval to 58 new schemes that could release up to £3 billion more investment to tackle another 170,000 homes and further reduce the number of non-decent social homes. This adds to the considerable achievement of there already being 1 million fewer social homes below the decency standard than seven years ago.

  I am also announcing a new scheme which would enable proposed stock transfers with a funding gap to go ahead. This will ensure that the option of a stock transfer is available to those cases where the stock has a negative value.

  The new schemes draw on funding using our three designated routes for councils that need extra resources to make their stock decent:

  I have awarded 12 local authorities places on the fourth round of the Arm's-Length Management Programme. These are Bassetlaw, Brent, Ealing, Eastbourne, Hammersmith and Fulham, Newark and Sherwood, Nottingham, Rotherham, Sandwell, Sheffield (partial), Slough, and Wolverhampton. Together, the bids from these authorities are for over £1.8 billion and cover just under 114,000 non-decent homes.

  I have agreed nine new schemes under the private finance initiative. These are in Cheshire, Derby, Kent, Kirklees, the London Boroughs of Croydon, Islington and Lambeth, Manchester and West Wiltshire. We are making PFI credits of around £370 million available to tackle 5,300 non-decent homes as well as providing new and refurbished affordable housing and building new sheltered and supported housing.

  Thirty stock transfer schemes in 14 local authorities have been awarded places on the 2004 transfer programme: Broxbourne, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Halton, Hyndburn, Kings Lynn and West Norfolk, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Macclesfield, Mid-Devon, North Somerset, Sedgefield, Stafford, West Lancashire and Sheffield. Seven more in four local authorities have had places held open: Manchester, North Norfolk, Preston, Teesdale. Together they generate £1 billion of private sector investment to tackle 56,000 non-decent homes and keep the stock in good condition for 30 years.

  These announcements are a tremendous achievement which show that we are making great strides toward our aim, which I confirmed in the sustainable communities plan in March 2003, of making all social housing decent by 2010.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, before business begins, may I take this opportunity to inform the House that I shall be attending a ministerial visit to Jersey on Monday 10 May? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Clinical Trials: Protection of Patients
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
How The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1031), laid before the House on 1 April, will change the law in relation to the protection of patients and their right to decline to be used in clinical trials.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the regulations impose new legal requirements for the protection of patients in clinical trials of medicines, particularly incapacitated adults and children. Those conducting trials must obtain informed consent from all participants. Patients are provided with detailed information on the nature of the trial and have the right to withdraw at any time. The new statutory requirements are in line with existing good clinical practice in the UK.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware, first, that I am grateful for what he has said and, secondly, that similar emollient assurances and promises of strict controls were made at the time of the passage of the Abortion Act 1967 and that every single one of those has been broken? Will he recall that the practice of using mentally handicapped people for experimentation and research without their permission, as now introduced in Statutory Instrument 2004/1031, was infamously pioneered by Nazi Germany and is abhorrent to all of us, in any circumstances whatever?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I understand the concerns expressed by noble Baroness. However, the regulations will help to ensure that the rights of all clinical trial subjects are protected and that the results of trials are reliable. They will produce powers of enforcement, which are lacking at the moment, when things are not satisfactory; and they will provide particular provision of a legal representative for people who are incapacitated.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister accept that, while it is obviously
1098
extremely important to protect the rights of patients to consent, there are areas of research that are of grave importance that would not go ahead if we did not find ways in which to get ethical approval for research? For example, we need approval for those who are in intensive care and those who are mentally incapable of giving consent.
I remind the House of my interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK. Does my noble friend agree that the interests of patients have to be safeguarded in ensuring that clinical trials do go ahead to the benefit both of those participating and future patients?
Lord Warner: My Lords, before responding to my noble friend's question, I wish her and other Members of the House who are participating in this evening's charity event, Race for Life, the very best of wishes—and healthy contributions from all Members of the House.
I share my noble friend's concerns. That is why it is important that we do not deny people with incapacity the ability to participate in these trials, which will enable us to find cures and treatments that are effective for all people.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, having been some time ago chairman of a medical research ethics committee, my understanding was that all parts of the country and all research were covered by such committees and that patients were protected by them. Has that system been breaking down, so that the Government feel it necessary to legislate?
Lord Warner: My Lords, that system has not broken down. Indeed, it has actually been strengthened under this Government, with more money going in to support local ethical committees. The regulations ensure that we strengthen arrangements for clinical trials across the EU and provide powers of enforcement when there are breaches of the conditions.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the Joint Select Committee on the draft Mental Incapacity Bill, which I chaired, considered the topic long and hard? We came to the conclusion that research on patients who lack capacity should be conducted, but under the strictest controls and protocols. To put it simply, how do we find a cure for Alzheimer's if we cannot do carefully controlled research on patients with that disease?
Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is of course absolutely right. That is why we did not in any sense wish to rule out the participation of those with incapacity in clinical trials, but wished to ensure that there would be adequate controls to protect their interests through the regulations.
Earl Howe: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that under the regulations patients who lack mental capacity can be included in clinical trials if consent is given on their behalf by their "legal representative"? The definition of legal representative is extremely wide and includes not only family members and the doctor

1099
in charge of the patient's care but also anyone else from the hospital involved. Is not that last category of legal representative a cause for some concern?
Lord Warner: My Lords, there is need for flexibility in these areas. It may not always be possible in certain circumstances to gain access quickly to a patient's relatives. The regulations ensure that no one who is associated with the research and clinical trials can act as a legal representative.
Lord Elton: My Lords, do I understand from that last answer that any other medically qualified member of the staff of a hospital where such a patient is resident is entitled to give consent, regardless of what the rest of the family may feel because they are not there?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the first order of call will be on the relatives of the patients concerned. The other arrangements for a wider group of people who can serve as legal representatives are to ensure that incapacitated patients are not denied the opportunity to participate in these trials because one cannot get quick access to a relative.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in his previous responses he did not appear to accept any order of call and that, as drafted, the provision could be seen to be open to objection?
Lord Warner: My Lords, these arrangements are an extremely narrow part of the regulations. They are included in this form in order to ensure that incapacitated people are not denied the opportunity to participate in clinical trials that, on the whole, often provide better treatment as well as the research capability.

Renewable Energy Strategy: Electricity Costs
2.45 p.m.
Lord Tombs Lord Tombs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the likely total cumulative cost to electricity customers, by the end of 2010, 2015 and 2020 respectively, of the Government's renewable energy strategy, assuming that the target for 2010 and the aspiration for 2020 are both met.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, for the period 1990–2010, the average annual cost of the Government's renewable energy strategy, assuming that the targets are met, is estimated to be very approximately £500 million per annum. For the period 1990–2015, the equivalent estimate is £800 million per annum and for the period 1990–2020, it is £1 billion per annum. These figures compare with the current total annual cost of supplying electricity to all consumers in the UK of around £15 billion.
1100
As with all long-term estimates, it must be appreciated that these are very tentative figures. Key areas of uncertainty include future progress in reducing the cost of renewables and the future rate of growth of electricity demand.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. I understand the uncertainties that underlie it. Very roughly, because I have not had the time to do the calculations thoroughly, this amounts to around £12 billion over the period. Is the Minister aware that one could meet the total construction costs, not the subsidy, of about 10 gigawatts of nuclear power for the same sum of money? Was serious consideration given to this as an alternative?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords. All the options were reviewed when we modelled this. Of course, if we were to build nuclear power it would have implications on the cost side. Again, a very wide range of figures is being given for the cost of nuclear power, not least because the figures are hypothetical, no nuclear power station having been built in this country since 1995.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I understand the tentative nature of the figures given by the noble Lord though I have seen higher figures quoted. However, is it not clear that, whatever the cost, it is consumers who are going to pay this subsidy? It is not the Treasury. Ought not that figure, whatever it is, to appear on every consumer's bill so that they know exactly how much they are paying towards the cost of the Government's fixation on wind power as a way of solving our carbon problem?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord revealed his starting point on this when he referred to the cost of the Government's position on renewables. Of course, it is the cost difference of getting carbon-free emissions. It is £1 billion in a total of about £15 billion, which is why I gave the other figure. It is an extremely difficult figure to calculate. On the whole, the British public feel that that additional cost per annum is well worth paying to deal with the very difficult problem of climate change.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend speculate about the cost of not meeting our targets for renewables? Is he satisfied that the Government are doing everything in their power and everything that is necessary to maintain their stated position of keeping the nuclear option open?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am very happy to give the other figures because the estimates have to be seen in the context of what happens if we do not. Perhaps it is worth quoting the Foresight flood and coastal defences project, which shows that in the most extreme case the cost of flood damage could rise from about £1 billion per year to around £20 billion per year by 2080. These are very large sums, whatever the course of action. It is also worth reminding the House that we currently

1101
have liabilities of approximately £50 billion for the civil decommissioning of nuclear facilities. There is no strategy here that is either simple or very low cost.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister indicate the extent to which the savings likely to arise from the Government's recently published energy efficiency policy could offset the costs of the renewable energy strategy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot give the figures now but I am very happy to write to the noble Lord with them. Clearly a significant part of them is what can be achieved by energy efficiency savings, which can be a very considerable figure. I shall write to the noble Lord with the figures and put a copy in the Library of the House.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Royal Academy of Engineering that the cost of electricity from renewable sources is more than the cost from every other source of energy, including nuclear, even when the costs of nuclear decommissioning, which the Minister just mentioned, are included?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am aware of the Royal Academy of Engineering's figures on this matter. As is the case with all figures, they are very different from everyone else's. Compared with other figures that we have, the academy's figures seem to attribute a very low cost to nuclear and a very high cost to renewables, from which I conclude it is ever more important that we set up the UK energy research centre so that we have reliable figures independently produced and agreed which everyone can use for these debates.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the Minister say with some assurance that the renewable energy totals will be met when the Ministry of Defence is still objecting to the erection of wind generators in south-west Scotland, which has arguably some of the best onshore areas for wind power? The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that that was because of learner pilots. Surely pilots of aeroplanes, civil or military, should be capable of manoeuvring around objects that are fixed on the ground.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am beginning to realise what fun I have missed by not taking part in the Energy Bill. From reading the debates on that Bill in Hansard, there appeared to be a great deal of discussion about whether people could manoeuvre yachts around offshore turbines and aeroplanes around turbines onshore. All these issues are being dealt with quite sensibly. We are proceeding on quite a good course to achieve our targets by 2010.
Lord Winston: My Lords—
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, if both noble Lords are quick, we can hear from both of them.
Lord Winston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that not enough has yet been done to engage the British public in the issues that are raised with regard to global warming, the use of proper energy, its conservation and so on?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there has been a considerable amount of debate but it is an issue to which more attention should be given in the next few years because we shall have to make some very big decisions. The more that the public are involved and see what all the issues are in terms of cost, energy security and the environment, the better it will be as regards coming to sensible decisions.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the United Kingdom still on course for meeting the 2010 target?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that, of course, depends on a whole series of actions being taken and on the actions of the investment community. However, there is a reasonable chance that we shall meet that target.

Euro 2004 Football Championships
2.53 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the security and crowd control arrangements being made for the Euro 2004 football championships in Portugal are expected to be sufficient.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, host arrangements for the Euro 2004 football championships are extensive and the Portuguese Government and police are confident that their security and crowd control arrangements will be effective. The UK Government and other agencies have provided maximum support over an extended period of time and enjoy a close working relationship with the Portuguese authorities.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Without flattering him too much, will he confirm that the Working Group on Football Disorder, which he chairs, has made a real difference to the state of preparedness for the summer's championships compared with what was in place in 2000? Can he confirm that as a result of passing the Football Disorder Act up to 2,500 known hooligans will be prevented travelling to Portugal compared with just 100 four years ago? Does he agree that this time the Football Association has done everything that it possibly can to restrict ticket sales to persons of good character through its own members' clubs, but that it cannot be held responsible for tickets that might be sold over the Internet?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am always grateful for support on this issue from wherever it comes. I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend for his work on the working group and on other football-related bodies

1103
in dealing with football disorder. I confirm that up to 2,500 people will be subject to banning orders as a result of the legislation that we put in place in 2000. I am confident that, given the approach adopted by the FA, all possible steps have been taken to minimise any disorder and unpleasantness which might take place at the championships. I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House will want to see the championships go off well and will wish England to be successful.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in agreeing that the Football Association has worked constructively to ensure a full police and banning order check on the official allocation of tickets for the first round England games, is the Minister aware that UEFA has sold some 80,000 tickets online to fans with English addresses? What representation did the Government make to dissuade UEFA from direct selling online since it has the potential of driving a coach and horses through crowd segregation and effective policing?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, UEFA has been selling tickets in line with European law. The noble Lord is right that an estimated 80,000 tickets have been sold directly to UK recipients. Those recipients are subject to the same checks that took place regarding those tickets sold through the Football Association. This obviously is a very difficult issue. People are entitled to access ticket sales; otherwise, the marketplace would be fettered. We believe that we have done all that we can to ensure that any potential for disorder is minimised. I congratulate the FA in particular on the way in which it has behaved during the course of discussions and on the actions that it has taken to promote a much more fan-friendly event.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in previous championships certain British newspapers have tried to present what is essentially a sporting contest as a rerun of World War II? Does he think it right and sensible for either him as chairman of the relevant committee or the Minister for Sport to call in the newspaper editors and say that the police and other authorities will have enough to do in making sure that these games are free from terrorism without incitement from the British press?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. Some discussions have taken place with sections of the media. They are being very carefully briefed on the way in which problems relating to disorder have been managed. The noble Lord is right to call on the media to act responsibly in reporting what takes place. Let us hope that they focus some of their attention on the very positive approaches that have been adopted, particularly by the fans' organisations, the FSF, the Football Association and the Government to promote a rather different image of the English fan abroad.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the excellent work that is being done by the British
1104
Council and the organisation, Fans 4 England, in building good relations in Portugal around the 2004 competition? I understand that this involves school visits, mini tournaments, links to children in orphanages in Portugal and many other activities. Arising from the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, does my noble friend share my hope that the broadcast and print media will give as much attention to these activities as they may give to the brain-dead hooligans, if they get there, whose only objective is violence and the possible ejection of England from the tournament?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the last point that the noble Lord made is a very important one. That threat is present. I share the noble Lord's hope and wish that there will be a much stronger focus on the positive moves and steps that have been taken, as I said, by the FSF, the FA, Fans 4 England and so on, to promote a different image of English football supporters abroad. There will be at least 50,000 of them abroad but I am very taken by the approach of adopting a community and providing support and encouragement to local young people, in Coimbra in particular, to participate and get involved in football and see it as something to enjoy rather than something to be frightened of or worried by.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, broadening the issue slightly and looking at security on an international level, is my noble friend satisfied that there will be adequate sharing of information given that we have many international events coming up in the future months, not least, of course, the Olympics in Athens? The news from there this morning was extremely disquieting.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, those departments that have an international context, particularly the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office, have been working carefully in this field to ensure that steps have been taken to deal with these problems. Yes, while some of the news is depressing, the work that has been undertaken by officials is very encouraging and we should get behind it and support it.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, how long does the banning order last—as long as England's participation or until 4 July?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the banning order regime is complex, but the banning orders that are in place—and there are likely to be some 2,100 more for the duration of the competition—vary in length. However, if the police prevent people travelling abroad, the noble Lord can be assured that that ban will cover the duration of the competition. It is a matter for the police and the courts whether it needs to be longer than that.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does the ban stop those subject to it only from travelling to Portugal or can they travel to any other country in the European Union and then gain access to Portugal?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that will depend very much on the nature of the ban that has been imposed.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that printing an individual's name on a ticket

1105
and requiring it to be matched to some form of identity could prove useful in making sure that tickets do not reach the wrong hands?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, those are exactly the type of practical measures that have been looked at in the past and continue to be under review, but the issuing of tickets is not directly within the Government's gift. It is a matter that we discuss regularly with the Football Association and it is aware that there are varying views. Yes, of course the practical measures that can be taken should be taken.

EU Enlargement: Institutions and Reform
3.1 p m.
Lord Grenfell Lord Grenfell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in light of the enlargement of the European Union to 25 member states, they will now press for reform of the Union's institutions as a matter of urgency.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): Yes, my Lords. This is why we want to see early agreement on a constitutional treaty which will make EU institutions more accountable and effective.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Can she say whether documentation setting out the proposed revised drafts of those treaty articles dealing with institutional reform—I stress the word "documentation"—will be made available to Parliament so that it can be scrutinised before the European Council meeting in June?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are placing in the Library of the House copies of the presidency's proposals that were issued last week. I understand and hope that they are being copied and placed there this afternoon. They include provisions on the formation of the Council. We also expect that there will be a wider-ranging discussion on the institutional proposals and, I hope, a further presidency paper in the context of the General Affairs Council on 17 and 18 June. We will make those documents available to Parliament and I hope that they will be available in advance of the Council meeting in June.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will these reforms also include, for example, reforming the Commission's accounts to a stage where they are acceptable to the auditors?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am unable to answer that question, because it is one which would flow from the Commission. In my supplementary answer to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, I was concentrating on the papers coming from the presidency. I was referring to the first of those papers which was issued last weekend. The other questions which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, raised concern institutional issues and I. hope that papers on those matters will be made available.
1106
However, I will consider the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, about the accounts, as I know that questions about the Commission's auditing are of considerable interest in your Lordships' House. I will try to provide an answer to the noble Lord and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that she has been guilty, no doubt inadvertently, of a serious non sequitur in her initial reply, which goes to the nub of the matter? The fact that enlargement of the Community requires some streamlining of its workings does not mean that this particular draft treaty, or anything like it, is acceptable. It contains a wide range of issues that have nothing to do with enlargement but involve a further massive centralisation of the European Union. Frankly, that is unacceptable.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am well aware that many noble Lords opposite find much of the draft treaty unacceptable. In doing so their judgment runs counter to that of your Lordships' own committee, which in its 41st report said that the treaty made plain the intention of the European Union to remain a union of sovereign states and it was clear that the balance of power would,
"shift from the Commission to member states".
It also said that the treaty would reform the European Parliament and,
"make a contribution to democratic accountability".
The fact is that judgments differ on this draft treaty, as the noble Lord well knows. I suggest to him that those judgments will continue to differ for some considerable time, but we will have a terrific opportunity to debate the matter on 11 May. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will be there to make his points.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords—
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, we have enough time to hear from both Benches.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that she was far too kind to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, when he started talking about "massive centralisation" arising from the convention and the discussions at the intergovernmental conference? Does she not accept that it is quite unacceptable to form that judgment given that he was a member of a government who created the Maastricht Treaty, where the centralising powers were much greater than anything visualised in the Convention and the draft constitution?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is always a good idea to be as kind as possible to the Opposition, who need as much help as they can get on some of these questions. I said to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, that his judgment ran counter to the judgment of your Lordships' own committee, which is

1107
far more in line with the views held by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson than those of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister further agree that some of the central proposals in the draft constitution would certainly make the European Union work more efficiently? I have in mind the simplification of the voting system, and the idea of streamlining the Commission. Regarding democratic accountability, does she also agree that the power to be given to a proportion of national parliaments to object to European Commission proposals on the grounds of subsidiarity is a long step forward towards recognising the roles of national parliaments as well as the European Parliament?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can agree with much of that and I remind your Lordships that the central basis on which we are now operating the European Union was constructed when there were only six countries in it. There are now 25. Of course the EU can struggle on under the present arrangements, but it would operate far more effectively and with far more accountability if the sorts of proposals inherent in the draft treaty were brought forward. They include issues such as relative voting weights, the number of Commissioners, the chairing of Council meetings and the important point raised by the noble Baroness regarding subsidiarity—where there will be more power coming to national parliaments.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we shall debate these matters ad nauseam in the coming weeks and months? It is important that we should be fully informed, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said. Does she concede that when she quoted the Lords European Union Committee report on the nature of the constitution, she was unintentionally giving us a slightly misguided view? Has it not been made clear that when that report said that powers would be transferred to the member states, it meant that powers would be transferred to the European Council, which consists of Ministers from the member states? That is very different. Ministers are fond of taking that quotation and throwing it around. Should they not be a little more accurate in interpreting that in our future debates?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, I did not attempt to interpret the report. I quoted it verbatim, regarding the,
"shift from the Commission to member states".
But I am perfectly happy to concede to the noble Lord that the mechanism is, of course, through Ministers, who are themselves accountable to their parliaments. It brings greater powers back to the member states. I agree with the noble Lord that that is the mechanism. If he will be kind enough to agree with the conclusion that the balance shifts from the Commission to the member states, we can input through the mechanism
1108
and agree on that point. However, the central point is what the noble Lord has to say about the committee's own decisions. The noble Lord is continuing to argue from a sedentary position, but the fact is that he may find himself in some difficulty over what your Lordships' committee has said. I, for one, feel very happy about it.
Perhaps I may take up the issue of debating this matter ad nauseam, as the noble Lord puts it. I do not think that we shall be doing that. If he feels like that, he need not debate it ad nauseam. I, for one, shall be very happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss this matter at any time.

Terrorist Threats: Public Information
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to inform the public about recent terrorist threats and how to react in the event of an emergency.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as part of a deliberate strategy by the Home Secretary, an increasing amount of information and advice is being made available to the public. Since November 2002, the Government have made available information on terrorist threats through three websites, four parliamentary updates and regular speeches and publications. General advice and information on preparing for a possible emergency is included on the Home Office terrorism website.
Advice on actions to take in specific emergencies is provided to the public by a range of organisations and departments, including the police, the Environment Agency in relation to flooding, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on overseas travel, the Department for Transport on UK travel, the fire service and the Department of Health.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which was very welcome. However, during the Committee stage of the Civil Contingencies Bill in another place, the Government expressed a clear and repeated intention to withhold information from the public in the belief that knowledge creates fear. Therefore, we welcome this change of stance, which reflects our position that knowledge dispels fear.
This move is long overdue, but if the Government are really serious about defending our nation against terrorist attacks, why has the passage of the Civil Contingencies Bill—a Bill intended to prepare us for a civil contingency in the case of a civil emergency—been stalled? Indeed, it seems to have sunk without trace. What are the Government afraid of?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are not afraid of anything. The Government's first priority. must be public safety, and that must be borne closely in mind in all decisions about public information and

1109
warnings. I am not aware that the Civil Contingencies Bill has stalled. We are committed to ensuring that that legislation reaches the statute book because we consider it to be very important and valuable. Our Government brought it forward, and it has been some time since a government legislated on this matter. We take the issues involved in the Bill very seriously indeed.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister not consider that his reply placed an over-emphasis on information being given out via websites? We have not yet reached the situation where people have ready access to websites. In fact, those who do not are often the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. Will the Minister consider using more simple and straightforward means of providing information, such as advertising in newspapers and public information films on television, rather than placing an over-emphasis on websites? Does he not think that it would be better to spend money on providing basic information in that way rather than directing a large proportion of much-needed resources at an experimental identity card, which will have nothing to do with countering terrorism?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord's last point, but I shall put that on one side. However, I think that the noble Lord makes a perfectly valid point about sources of information and about where information should be placed. The Government review at all times where they place such information. At some stage, it may well be appropriate to place advertisements in newspapers. It may also be appropriate to produce leaflets and literature, to make other public service broadcasts or to make public information available through radio and television and so on. We keep all those things under review, and we act and take the initiative when it seems to us to be important to do so.
As to the issue of websites, roughly half the population have access to a website and probably even more have indirect access. The websites that have been set up are very popular. I am told that the www.MI5.gov.uk website had approximately 3 million hits on its first day last Friday. I do not know whether that is a record but it obviously seems to have stimulated a great deal of interest.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most of us of a certain age in this House have been vaccinated for smallpox one or more times in our lives but that those vaccinations are now out of date? Given that the Government have the vaccines, will the Minister tell us why they are not making vaccination for smallpox available on a voluntary basis? Again, in the event of a terrorist attack using smallpox infections, why will only a pathetically tiny number of doctors, nurses and ambulance drivers have been vaccinated and thus be able to deal with an emergency of that kind?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting issue, and it is a matter that must be taken very carefully into account when completing a risk assessment. Obviously, at present, the view is
1110
that the level of risk is such that vaccination has not become as urgent a priority as the noble Lord believes it should be.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, do the Government believe that the great British public are a pretty sensible lot who take a commonsense view about the completely amorphous threat which may be made by anyone to anyone at any time by any means? It seems to me that what the Government can usefully say on a website or elsewhere is hard to conceive.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord always makes a good point and, on this occasion, he is right. We should be very commonsensical in the way in which we deal with such a situation and that is basically the Government's approach.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question of the Civil Contingencies Bill. Will the Minister please give me, perhaps in writing, some reassurance that the Bill has not been stalled? Indeed, it left Committee in another place in early February. I remember that during the passage of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill we had to stall all the normal practices and procedures in terms of timings in this House because that legislation was felt to have such a high priority. In contrast, we believe that the Civil Contingencies Bill is being treated by the Government as having a very low priority. and we do not understand why that should be. Given, for example, what happened recently in Madrid. we believe that the Bill should be treated as a high-priority issue.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Ball is obviously a high-priority issue. That is why it was brought before another place. The Bill has not stalled; it is proceeding and it will take its place with all the other pieces of legislation. I am sure that it will reach your Lordships' House and the noble Baroness will have the opportunity to discuss and debate it then.

Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Thornton set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Viscount Chandos to two hours.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Central Government and Local Communities
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Thorntonrose to call attention to the role which central government play in supporting local communities; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, several noble Lords have raised with me the open-ended nature of this Motion. I strongly suspect that the wide nature of the debate that we are about to have and the many facets of community support that will be explored will more than justify the breadth of the topic and will prove all the more worth while for that—even if they present my noble friend the Minister with something of a challenge when he comes to reply. I can see experts in local government, rural matters, young offenders, the arts, the business world, the Church, drug abuse, housing and the voluntary sector who will be speaking today, and I am very grateful for the interest that has been shown by noble Lords.
When this Labour Government were elected in 1997 and re-elected in 2001, an important part of the platform on which they stood was that of providing increasing and appropriate support to communities and neighbourhoods. They wanted to encourage the growth of strong, safe and thriving communities—communities that took responsibility for their own development and for changing and improving the lives of their citizens. That has been the focus of the Government's support at local level.
I am sure that most people would accept that the Government have three main roles in their support for local communities: promoting social order and safety, investing in individuals and communities so that they can thrive and help themselves, and creating working partnerships so that people can control or influence the change in their own communities.
I believe that it was recognised in the very early days of community-based programmes that two prerequisites made change viable and possible. First, government at local, regional and national level needed to create and nurture partnerships with a huge range of people and organisations —stakeholders, I suppose, one would call them, although it is not a word that I like. Community leaders, voluntary and community organisations, churches, schools and colleges, small and large business and many of the umbrella organisations that represented those groups needed to be involved. It was recognised that they needed those relationships to find out what people thought the solutions to their problems were and to help to deliver them.
During that period the Government, particularly civil servants, found themselves round the table with all kinds of people. They needed to learn to listen to what local people, experts and practitioners had to tell them. Sometimes that has worked and sometimes it has not. Sometimes it has brought about radical and unusual support from government to local communities, and sometimes we have found ourselves mired in bureaucracy and red tape.
1112
Secondly, and just as importantly, to deliver real change would require the Government to change their culture. It would require work, co-operation and collaboration across government departments in a way that simply had not been normal practice, however much the cause might justify it. It might mean budgets shared, targets set across department boundaries and a more holistic approach to certain seemingly intractable problems over a longer period than one term of government could offer, such as dealing with the issue of rough sleepers, or tackling child poverty, or dealing with failing communities.
Some noble Lords may recall the work of the policy action teams (PAT 1–18 in the first tranche, if I recall correctly) which worked under the then newly created Social Exclusion Unit. They provided both prototypes in the way that they worked, bringing government together with practitioners and experts, and blueprints of the kind of national and local collaboration, mixed with possibly new laws and resources that might be brought to bear on some big issues. I believe that many of the reforms and work carried out since can be traced back to the work of the Social Exclusion Unit.
There have been some startlingly good initiatives that have made a huge impact in local communities. I believe that Sure Start must be one of the most important examples of the Government investing in a local community for the long term, being flexible, listening to local people and providing the right kind of resource. However, I shall focus on what the Government have been doing to support the fight against anti-social behaviour and what they are doing to support local initiatives to build local communities without the help necessarily of the local authority.
It was agreed as long ago as 1998 that the Home Office should co-ordinate tackling anti-social behaviour nationally, working closely with the DETR and other government departments. It was also agreed that preventive work should run alongside punitive measures, as prevention is crucial to reducing anti-social behaviour, particularly in deprived neighbourhoods. Investment in prevention can save large enforcement costs later.
That can be achieved through measures many of which will be familiar to those in your Lordship's House and to those who take an interest in these issues. They are such matters as reducing the risk of anti-social behaviour; for example through lighting in communal areas, entry phones, better housing allocation policies, taking action to deal with tenants, better gathering and sharing of information, co-ordinating preventive services, family support, drug and alcohol services and involving schools and youth services in discouraging anti-social behaviour by young people.
Over the past six years we have seen legislation and initiatives, targets and resources from the Home Office, the ODPM, the Department of Health and the DIES, focusing on this issue because it is clear that unless central government provide local government and local agencies with the tools and a co-ordinated approach, neither of them can tackle any of the issues on their own. None of that, as they say, is rocket science.

1113
The borough in London in which I have my London base is Camden, which has fully embraced the antisocial behaviour legislation to deal with individuals who can blight the lives of their neighbours and communities. At the same time they have heavily invested in cleaning up Camden's streets of graffiti and litter, thereby creating environments that are safe and look safe, and which are attractive to people.
So how is it going? A review of the crime and disorder strategy and the latest crime statistics show that Camden is making significant progress in reducing crime. It is one of the only boroughs in London which is on track to meet its national targets on the reduction of street crime, burglary and vehicle crime this year. The latest statistics for the period April 2003 to February 2004 show a 15 per cent fall in domestic burglary compared with the same period last year; a 10 per cent fall in vehicle crime; a 26 per cent fall in robbery; and a 26 per cent fall in street crime.
One reason for the success is a community safety partnership, which includes the police, the local authority, the voluntary sector and the fire service. That sets the direction and identifies the key priority areas for a programme of action. There are also partnership weeks, when all partners are brought together to focus on the hot spots and to try new and innovative ways to reduce crime; there is a programme of action in Camden Town, supported by investment in the environment to bring about a dramatic change in that area; there is joint work between the police sector teams, the street population service and street wardens, which is targeting people causing particular problems; and there is shared accommodation in some areas between the police and the local authority. In fact the community policeman in Tufnell Park has a base in my children's school.
Camden has recently been commended by the Metropolitan Police for its partnership working to improve community safety and has been used as an example of good practice. Recently there was the launch of a pilot scheme called Step Change in Queen's Crescent, where community-based police will not leave their beat except in exceptional circumstances. In other words, they will not be pulled off to look after football matches on Saturdays or for any other reason. Their priority will be to become integrated into the local community that they serve.
I now turn to my beloved, but sometimes beleaguered, home city of Bradford. I want to talk about community enterprise, creating wealth in communities and keeping it there. The council has not, in recent years, distinguished itself in harnessing and developing community spirit—perhaps a change of regime might do the trick. However, it is significant that during the shameful riots in the Manningham district of Bradford, one building was left untouched—the Carlisle Business Centre. Why was that? It was untouched because it is the home of Action for Business Limited, a development trust founded in 1992 which has gained the trust and respect of local people, of whom over 70 per cent are from ethnic minority communities. With a mixture of funding and government programmes, the centre now offers 89 offices and workshops as well as conference facilities, and it is a
1114
community resource as well as a vehicle to reinvigorate the local economy. Community lunches, an employment agency and computer-assisted learning are some of the resources available there.
With that outfit, the development trust is now a sustainable community resource, no longer dependent on grant aid. Bradford Trident is a New Deal for Communities programme with a difference. Bradford Trident from the outset modelled itself on the development trust model. Vigorous investment in local enterprise, including business advice, wage subsidies for local employment and skills training, has been combined with healthy living schemes, environmental improvements and the demolition of particularly horrible, obsolete council flats. As a development trust, Bradford Trident is concerned not just with quick wins but also with the long term. Therefore, it is investing in land and property, so that when the government funds run out, there will be an asset base and income stream in the service of the community for years to come.
I am using development trusts—a national network of community enterprises—as an example of how national programmes can and should be used to promote locally grown initiatives. There are thousands of groups and organisations that I could mention; for example, Groundwork, with its millennium awards and support for environmental change, or social firms or family centres run by children's charities.
Development trusts are community enterprises. As such they are a form of social enterprise, trading for social purpose, based in a community of place or interest. They seek to move beyond the provision of welfare services, by setting up enterprises (including social businesses) which encourage self-help and reduce dependency. They bring the entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector to the problems that face communities. Development trusts are helping to create some of the most enterprising communities in the UK where a "can-do" culture is driving change.
As the examples in Bradford illustrate, investment in enterprise creation can be a means to achieving sustainable community organisations, even in the most disadvantaged areas. Government, local authorities and other public bodies need to play a vital enabling role, such as the transfer of assets of underused buildings and cutting the red tape needed for investment. Recent initiatives, not least the Adventure Capital Fund backed by the Home Office, ODPM, DTI and four of the RDAs—Yorkshire Forward, ENIDA, EEDA, and LDA —have pioneered new forms of investment in community enterprise. More is needed—as always.
Finally, more effective business support and skills development is required because the conventional small business service does not always meet the specialist assistance needs of social and community enterprises.
I have spoken at some length about this particular work because I believe it brings together some of the best examples of how appropriate interventions—not particularly resource intensive—and central government support can be used to grow new and optimistic communities, and in a democratic and sustainable way. I

1115
am grateful to the Development Trusts Association for responding to my plea for information, and congratulate it on its pioneering work. When I framed this speech it was difficult not to include examples of some of the exciting urban renaissance that is under way—in fact I do not think that I can resist the temptation to mention a few.
Ask the people of Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow, Cardiff and Manchester whether their city centres are not better than they were six years ago. City Centre Safe in Manchester is an innovative partnership initiative between the Greater Manchester Police, Manchester City Council, Manchester transport and business groups. The project involves marshalling taxi ranks, the introduction of safe night buses and night-net and a communication system linking a wide range of services. The project has made a significant impact on the night-time economy in Manchester, making the city a safer place to visit and enjoy and enabling people to get home safely.
In Sheffield a network of local area panels—in place since 1998—has provided essential support for local regeneration. The joint working with local regeneration boards, development trusts and forums has achieved a better fit between mainstream and community regeneration activity—thus making the best of national support and local investment. There are many more examples we could use today, and I am sure that many noble Lords will.
I close by saying that I hope and believe that the Government have learned over the past six years that providing support from a national level to a local community has to be done in many ways. It must be done with sensitivity and by listening to people. Legislation, all the different schemes—and if I have a criticism, it is that navigating the neighbourhood renewal site of the ODPM is not a straightforward business; often there are too many schemes and they are too difficult to access—the pilot schemes, the national targets and so on have to be combined together and then added to local knowledge and wisdom. They have to be given time to succeed, and sometimes time to fail, to bring about real change. I beg to move for Papers.
3.33 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on introducing what is a very timely debate because we have local elections coming upon us shortly. On these Benches we believe that central government can best support communities by setting a framework which empowers communities and the individuals that make up those communities; and that such a framework should be underpinned by a coherent philosophy and a set of political beliefs.
The present Government have set out to help many of the most deprived communities in Britain. Although much has been achieved after years of increasing centralisation, and in some cases wholesale destruction of some communities—here I think particularly of coal mining areas—several recent reports have flagged up a series of failings in some central government inspired and funded projects. Indeed, the noble Baroness touched on some of those. I shall talk a little more on that later.
1116
I believe that the failures in some circumstances stem from the fact that a clear philosophy and a set of political beliefs do not underpin this Government's actions. There is some evidence for that. Some years ago the parliamentary question that left the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, uncharacteristically lost for words was not about health statistics, ministerial failures or foreign policy; it was a modest request from one of his own side that he should give the House of Commons a brief characterisation of the political philosophy and beliefs that underpin his policies.
He did not actually take the opportunity; he hastily started talking about health service investment figures. That lack of coherence shows through in the various Acts of Parliament and some of the current Bills which the Government have introduced affecting local and regional government. They are often heralded by claims of giving more power to local councils, but the reality is that they are always hedged around with tight description, particularly in secondary legislation, and with too many new powers for Ministers.
If there is no underlying framework of belief or philosophy, the direction of policy change becomes unpredictable. I believe that has been the unhappy experience of many Labour voters of this new Labour Government. As Liberal Democrats, we believe that we have a distinct advantage, which we probably do too little to advertise or exploit, although our opposition colleagues would say we are probably a hit sanctimonious. Nevertheless, I shall continue to be slightly sanctimonious.
Our party is based on a clear set of beliefs. They can be traced back not only to the 19th century when they were systematically articulated by John Stuart Mill, but even further back to the conflict between Crown and Parliament in the 17th century. Fundamental to Liberalism is the belief in the freedom of the individual. That freedom is threatened from many directions: by over-mighty states; by private concentrations of power; by the actions of other individuals; or by circumstances that leave the individual without access to power or opportunity.
The preoccupation of Liberalism has been the creation of a democratic system of government which can protect individual liberty and whose institutions are themselves restrained from usurping the freedom of the individual.
Relationships between different tiers of government will always be strained. We have already heard about that. But there needs to be a clear spreading of power among the different tiers where powers are handled at the most appropriate level. In that way we can guard against the maxim that,
"all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
The past 50 years have been characterised by what I think I can describe as, the "Whitehall knows best" syndrome of bigger is better. Local government reorganisers have swept away many of our small, community-based councils in the name of efficiency. We have seen more bureaucracy, more central government

1117
initiatives, targets, inspections and bidding rounds for various central government programmes. I believe that has led in many areas to greater public alienation from the political process.
Over the same period, services that have traditionally been run by local government were nationalised or run through government-appointed agencies. In Britain, we witnessed the birth of something that has been described as the "quango state". Today, we see too much financial control at the centre and not enough in lower tiers of government. I think—and I am sure that it will come out in the debate—that across the board everyone recognises that we need to empower local communities if we want to have thriving, vibrant and sustainable communities. Too many of our citizens live in communities where they are excluded, either because of unemployment, low incomes, poor streets, poor housing, high crime environments—a matter referred to by the noble Baroness—bad health and, increasingly, family breakdown.
The Government have tried to drive through an agenda to tackle some of these problems. Some initiatives have been more successful than others. I say again that where there is a lack of success, I believe it stems from the setting up of too many schemes, which again the noble Baroness referred to, often led by Whitehall or quangos. I feel that there has been a failure to strengthen and support local government structures, including changing the financial structures, where we could deliver most of what we all want to see in our local communities.
There have been several reports recently about some government schemes, one of them from the National Audit Office on the New Deal for Communities. The press release following its report states:
"A lack of basic financial and performance reporting data hinders NDC partnerships' ability to demonstrate effective delivery and performance, to monitor their own performance, and to draw comparisons and learn from each other".
That was said about the New Deal for Communities. If it had been said about local authorities, Ministers would be sending in hit squads to try to deal with them. The report also states:
"In many cases there are tensions between NDC partnerships and their accountable bodies, usually the local authority".
The schemes often have poor financial management and spend large amounts of money on administration. That is not a cost-effective way to target regeneration.
Indeed, the report of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2003 found that, because the New Deal for Communities is a separate programme to the many other area-based initiatives and local authority regeneration programmes currently running, it overlaps with many other programmes. I probably do not have time to list them all, but some of them are the single regeneration budget, health action zones, education action zones, employment action zones, Excellence in Cities, Sure Start, European Union-funded area-based initiatives, and I could go on.
Yet another report has been produced, this time by the Economic and Social Research Council. It looked specifically at urban regeneration, working in conjunction with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. It highlighted some of the problems that can be created by
1118
the partnership approach. On the whole, people think that the partnership approach is a good way to proceed, but we must be aware of the problems. The report states:
"Bringing together the private and voluntary sectors, local community groups and various central and local government agencies in urban regeneration partnerships … can sometimes work well. However, it can also raise a host of issues about trust, leadership, costs, and having too many unproductive meetings".
The study was led by Professor Michael Ball of the University of Reading and explored the difficulties of co-operation between such diverse groups. One conclusion was that if we are to use such a model, which is often neither a market nor state project, there should be much more testing before schemes are implemented.
We do not doubt the Government's good intentions in supporting communities. Indeed, we support many of their aims and welcome their successes. Looking at the number of Labour Members on the speakers list, I suspect that we will hear a lot more about some of the Government's successes. But there is quite a bit of evidence, on which I have merely touched, that shows that more thorough evaluation of schemes and a clearer philosophy is needed to guide policies if we are to be and to create what we would describe—and what I have even heard the Government describe—as a liberal democracy that empowers individuals to create the thriving, vibrant and sustainable communities we all want.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on giving us the opportunity to debate the role of central government in local communities. Living in a region—the north-west of England and especially on Merseyside—t hat continues to require funds for regeneration after two decades, I welcome the debate. Partnership between central government and local communities has taken place in Merseyside for more than 20 years, especially since the riots of 1981. I shall compare then and now.
In the early 1980s, local community leaders from all backgrounds—local councillors, voluntary bodies, churches and residents—were invited to discuss with central government civil servants and Ministers the needs of Liverpool. The regeneration of Toxteth and its surrounding area of Liverpool 8 began, and led to a vast improvement in housing, roads, public areas and new, comprehensive health centres and clinics. I am pleased to see in his place the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard, the former Bishop of Liverpool who played such a significant role during that time in the history of Liverpool.
One of the barriers met—it continues to exist—is that between local government and local people, especially those from black and other ethnic minority backgrounds and communities. An example is the choosing of sites for community centres. The Chinese community in Liverpool was allocated—given, because it could not pay for it—a site that was a former depot for waste disposal vehicles and some distance from the recognised Chinatown.

1119
What has happened since then? Since 1997, local strategic partnerships have been set up involving people with a background in health, housing, the environment, the local community, security and safety. Having been a member of the local strategic partnership in Birkenhead and Wirral, I have mixed feelings about the usefulness of such partnerships. In principle, LSPs are very good, but one difficulty, which has been mentioned, is the influence of government offices and regeneration agencies and other quangos. The priorities of local residents are modified by those bodies because of difficulties of or priorities in funding.
So the Government need to maintain a balance between support for local communities and giving the impression of prescribing from a distance a programme of action that is expected to correct social problems in the short term. That balance requires consultation with local people not once but continuously, but if it is not handled sensitively, communities can become disappointed and disillusioned with the Government.
One example of great success is the Sure Start programme. We have a number of Sure Start programmes on the Wirral in five disadvantaged areas of that part of the world. Sure Start was set up to tackle health inequalities among deprived and disadvantaged communities. Nurses and community workers have been employed to visit families with newborn babies and young children to provide advice and long-term support for up to three years, or even longer. Young and single mothers are given support to breast-feed their babies and care for them and their family. Groups of mothers are also encouraged to meet to support one another and improve their skills.
One disadvantage of the Sure Start programme is the size of population needed to qualify for the programme. As a result, small neighbourhoods on the opposite side of the road from the Sure Start programme and also containing disadvantaged people can miss out on that support. Alternative funding has been found from the neighbourhood renewal programme, together with money from the primary care trust to provide similar support for young families with the freedom to include fathers.
The main worry about support from central government is their time limit of three to five years. If funding runs out before local government can generate funds to carry on effective schemes, good quality work will be cut off and needy people left without support to help them improve themselves. Perhaps the Minister might consider that problem in his reply.
I should also like to highlight on a broader canvas the fact that other parts of government—the National Health Service—have also been listening to local people. That has led to a shifting of the focus of health services to primary healthcare. By improving access to health-related information through the telephone service NHS Direct and walk-in centres, more choice has been provided, which local people have welcomed and used. Availability of appointments to see general practitioners about acute illnesses have improved so
1120
much that almost all patients can be seen within 48 hours. I declare that I am a non-executive director of Birkenhead and Wallasey NHS Primary Care Trust.
One unexpected outcome of that improvement in services has been the identification of people who appear to bypass their GP and do not make appointments by telephone but go to the emergency department of their local hospital. Another has been requests by patients with chronic disorders for long-term appointments. But improvement in primary healthcare has not necessarily been welcomed by some hospitals, which realise that their funding will not increase as rapidly as it did in previous decades.
There is the prospect of intermediate care provided by GPs reducing the workload of some hospital departments. Central government have offered patients a choice of treatment for coronary heart disease beyond their local NHS hospitals, including private hospitals and ones on mainland Europe. Currently, eye operations for cataracts are available in mobile operating suites, staffed by South African doctors and nurses. All those innovations provided by central government have been welcomed and appreciated by local patients.
I wish to focus on issues directly related to a diverse population, particularly support provided by race equality councils, which appear to be diminishing in the northwest. That support, which helps ethnic minority communities engage with majority communities in their locality, is vital, especially in towns that experience inter-racial conflict—Oldham, Burnley and Blackburn. Councils may help new migrants to adjust to settling in other areas, too. Funding of race equality councils comes from the Commission for Racial Equality, which is reducing the number of councils that it supports. Services provided by RECs are not available from other sources such as citizens advice bureaux.
Central government should support local choice in housing. It appears that local tenants no longer have the option to remain with their local council as landlord. I look forward to the Minister's response.
3.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for initiating the debate. It is, after all, at local level that the fabric of our civil society is maintained and developed. As the Home Secretary has written in the report of the Home Office's Civil Renewal Unit:
"Building the capacity of both individuals and groups within communities is central to the process of civil renewal, enabling local people to develop their own solutions to the issues which most affect them".
It is because the Churches value and seek to offer a critique of that agenda that we have established the Churches Commission on the Urban Life and Faith as a successor to the landmark report Faith in the City of 20 years ago. I want to speak about two specific dimensions of that enabling role of government, critical among the many and varied avenues of the work of supporting local communities.
First, I want to talk about government support for faith communities in local civil renewal. Having served with other faith leaders as a member of the Home

1121
Office steering group on the engagement of government with faith communities in England, I welcomed its report published last February entitled Working Together. That document was part of a significant trend in national policy initiatives developed, particularly since 9/11. It highlights the extensive role of faith communities in delivering services and local capacity building. It cites the finding of the 2001 census that 76.8 per cent of the population identify a religious affiliation, and estimates, as we can from other sources, that 30 per cent of workers in the voluntary sector label themselves as churchgoers. Working Together puts it like this:
"Faith community organisations are gateways to access the tremendous reserves of energy and commitment of their members, which can be of great importance to the development of civil society".
The evidence of that is all around us in Leicester, where I come from. There some 450 faith-based community projects play their part in civil society. They are located at the heart of their communities, can reach the hard-to-reach and most disadvantaged groups, offer extraordinary value for money and are trusted by the local community. As Working Together described, such organisations are,
"informed by … values such as compassion, inclusivity, empathy and trust".
For those reasons, in Leicester we have established a faiths regeneration network and a full-time project officer to build on the social role of the sector. It is a sector uniquely placed, alongside other agencies, to provide local neighbourhoods with a wide range of services: work with young people, counselling, health and employment advice, drugs prevention initiatives, family support and services for the elderly, to name but a few. Individual faith-led projects in Leicester serve on average 300 individuals a week each, at very low cost. In Leicester alone the value of the voluntary effort expended through the faith sector is estimated at well over £5 million a year.
Therefore, the question is: how does the Government's clear policy of support for the civil role of faith communities match up with public support and local outcomes on the ground? Despite the Government's enthusiasm for faith-led social action, many local authorities and other public agencies still seem at times to display a distrust of faith involvement. Access to funding can be barred by over-complex funding criteria, and faith groups are sometimes discriminated against in assessing applications. Furthermore, access to local strategic partnerships is sometimes limited and variable from city to city. For that reason, it is crucial that the Home Office Faith Communities Unit ensures that the rhetoric is translated into action. As the Local Government Association commented recently:
"The government's recognition of the faith communities' significant neighbourhood renewal and social inclusion role has yet to be reflected fully in practice".
I look forward to the fuller realisation of such support for that vital work in the days ahead.
I wish to touch briefly on another area of central government support for local communities. Much has been achieved in the complex programme of community-led regeneration, to which reference has already been
1122
made. But there remains a long way to go in many of our cities, if we are to learn how to do that well. In my city, as in many others, it is the Churches that provide the local leadership required by programmes such as the New Deal. The vision behind those programmes is the empowerment of the community, but the danger that we see around us is that the Government show signs at times of feeling that delivery is not coming quickly enough.
There are consequences of that political impatience. First, the rhetoric begins to change from community-led regeneration to community-involved regeneration, a subtle shift but a highly significant change of emphasis. It may represent a move away from a deep-seated belief that local communities, given the right support, can and will make wise choices about the future of their cities.
Secondly, the pressures grow for target-driven regeneration, with a constant stream of performance-driven initiatives which, while worthy in themselves, go no way towards measuring less tangible but vital outcomes such as growth in trust, self-esteem and self-confidence, without which sustainable community regeneration cannot be achieved.
Thirdly, the whole concept of capacity-building must be seen much more as a two-way process. Of course, the capacity of the local community needs to be constantly built; handling large sums of money and engaging with the complex world of consultants and specialists are demanding. These programmes also demonstrate the need to work hard to build the capacity of officials, local government offices, consultants, architects and accountants, in order that they know more sensitively how to listen carefully and creatively to local voices and to enter imaginatively worlds that are often alien to them. The key issue here, as elsewhere in the role of government in supporting local communities, has to do with speed of delivery. Changing the culture, the aspirations, the self-esteem and the vision of local communities in our neediest areas cannot be done overnight. Sustained, committed support from local government in the long term is absolutely essential.
The message that I hope that the Government will receive from this debate, as pressures to deliver intensify, is this: do not lose your nerve; continue to enable regeneration to be genuinely community-led, and learn to be patient enough to enable sustainable change to be achieved. Only that way will our most vulnerable, deprived communities be renewed and recreated for a generation to come.
4.2 p.m.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on initialing this debate. I will speak on two areas, which are both close to my heart. Both illustrate the crucial role of government in enabling local communities to serve the needs of their citizens. First, I will use the urban regeneration scheme in Corby to show exactly how this partnership can change the lives of the people of that town. Secondly, I hope to outline the many government initiatives that are helping sport to take its rightful place in society.

1123
I will start with Corby. Our urban regeneration scheme has been modelled exactly on the Government's White Paper and on Lord Rodgers's task force. It is a blueprint for renewal and a case study of value. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been the driving force behind this project—a radical scheme based totally on partnership, vision and systematic consultation, all aimed at creating a vibrant, sustainable town. The whole of Corby is covered by the project. Our scheme was the first to be announced by John Prescott, and we are proud of that unique status. That was some three years ago. No one told Corby what it wanted; Corby told us. A town that was devastated in the 1980s by the closure of the steelworks had shown in those intervening years that it was not prepared to fade away, and its record spoke for itself.
What was clearly apparent was that the growth anticipated in the 1980s had not happened, and that the crucial mass of the town was lacking. Size does matter if a community is to enjoy all the amenities that it rightly expects. Today, even more than before, commercial interests can only be sustained by an appropriate population, both in size and profile. Schools, shops, sporting and cultural facilities all left much to be desired. Of course, we bore—and still do—the label of being the largest town in Europe without a passenger railway station. That was the scenario before Catalyst Corby came into being. Regeneration can only be accomplished by powerful partnerships and focussed goals, and we now have them in Corby. We have a dynamic board with government representation via the East Midlands Development Agency, English Partnerships, Corby Borough Council, Northamptonshire County Council, the Chamber of Commerce, perhaps most crucially welded together by the local representation from community and business interests, which all drive this project forward.
Our vision is clear; a new town centre, containing a full range of retail, leisure, community and residential uses of which people will be proud; a fully integrated public and private transport system, extensive new housing, which will provide a wide housing choice and attract new residents; employment sites meeting modern requirements, which will attract modern new industries. Underpinning these objectives is the determination to create a town that is sustainable and vibrant; a town of 50,000 to become 100,000, and a town that is diverse and successful. To achieve this, we will require investment of almost £4 billion. Much of this will be privately funded, but we depend on government agencies to kick start our project. They have been remarkable, in the quality of their support, their professional advice and the significant financial support that we have already received in bringing us to the stage we are at today.
Chairing that board has been a privilege. I have seen at first hand the value of total co-operation with central and local government, working hand in hand with the certainty that we will deliver a town that its residents and businesses deserve and rightly demand.
1124
If there is a sting in the tail of my speech today, it must be this: please, Minister, do not allow anyone to take their eye off our prize project. We cannot succeed without continuous and continuing government help and expertise. Do not let us find ourselves in difficult competition with other growth areas. We, as a regeneration project, can form the core and help to provide the solution to the housing needs that the Government have rightly identified, but we are unique, and we should be recognised as such. I hope that our success will encourage even more partnership schemes up and down the country. It is a formula that we have found dynamic and creative. The Government are certainly to be congratulated in instigating it.
Step change is a phrase apparently beloved by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, so perhaps I may borrow it to move on to another area where government action is crucial to success. Sport is high on their agenda. It needs to be. We inherited a sporting landscape decimated by the Tories. Sport in schools— smashed; sport in the communities—smashed; all by a Government that sent their children to public schools, where sport continues to thrive, while crippling the schools to which the rest of us send our children. Thankfully, that is in the past. Our Government see the value of sport, to stave off ill health, particularly obesity and heart disease, and to draw youngsters into sporting activities that can stay with them for the whole of their lives. Sport provides social cohesion and inclusiveness, not forgetting that sport is also wonderful fun and enjoyable.
Let us look at this Government's record to see how they have set about supporting local communities. I do not need to tell noble Lords that money talks. This Government have invested more than £3 billion of government and lottery money directly into sport. Much has been targeted at school sport, in the form of new facilities, setting up and running extra-curricular activities and a wide range of coaching. The New Opportunities Fund and Sport England have played leading roles in this area, and are to be applauded. In respect of Sport England, I will perhaps be the first to offer a welcome to Patrick Carter who, as chair of Sport England, has recently been announced as a new life Peer. It will be wonderful to have him fighting for sport and doubtless arguing for the Government to do even more.
More money—this time from the Treasury, with the Chancellor's blessing and endorsement—means that community amateur sports clubs, at last freed from the shackles of crippling rates and tax, are able to concentrate on opening their doors and welcoming in their local communities. Even more money is to be invested in our stars of the future, elite squads with funding to enable full-time commitment to their chosen sport in their quest for excellence. They are our future heroes who will inspire the next generation of sportsmen and women. I could go on, but I see that the stopwatch is gathering pace.
Perhaps I may indulge myself with a plea for one specific issue to be looked at urgently. I believe that it would help enormously the widest possible range of clubs, including hockey, cricket, rugby union, rugby

1125
league, athletics and tennis clubs. The issue to which I refer is planning, which is always a blight for progressives. It is now a blight for existing sports clubs. I am referring to small, local clubs that are often in urban areas. They are constantly refused planning permission to upgrade and improve their facilities, such as floodlighting, playing surfaces and indoor facilities, and for better club and social facilities. I could quote case study after case study where planning has been refused.
In this day and age, local clubs, which are therefore so valuable, must be able to offer year-round facilities. With the wholehearted support of the CCPR, all the governing bodies of sport, including Sport England and the LTA, I urge a revisit of our planning guidelines in order to come to the rescue of those clubs, many of which are now under threat. The syndrome of decline of facilities means that there is a loss of members and eventual extinction —the point at which the property developers move in. Of course, local residents must be protected against gross intrusion, but the balance between residents and clubs is now out of balance.
Perhaps I may finish by repeating a case study that was quoted by none other than our Minister with responsibility for sport, Richard Caborn. After enormous hard work, a school in his constituency upgraded its facilities and became a joint project for the school and community—the perfect formula. Imagine therefore their dismay on being granted, on the one hand, permission to floodlight the facilities, while, on the other hand, being told that the lights had to go out at 6.30 p.m.
My congratulations on all that has been achieved in sport. Please let us pledge ourselves to doing even more in the future.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for initiating this debate. It is a very important debate, which marks completely the departure of the Labour Government from what was the "meism" of the previous Tory administrations of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and John Major, and, in particular, getting away from the idea that there was no such thing as community. It is vitally important that, having created this new approach, we ensure that it is carried out. It is a sustainable community. It is a top priority for this Government.
An awful lot of money is involved because roughly £22 billion will be spent. But it is a new approach. The Government are not only talking about how we will build and what we will build; what is more important is that they are talking about a community in the round. They are not just talking about housing, but they are linking it to jobs, to the booming economy, to public services and to improving the environment. This is not just about developing jobs and services, it is about having a good environment for people to live in, to enjoy, to have green spaces, to revitalise the parks and to look again at developing the community forest. It is
1126
important that we do not just have a one-step approach—for example, housing—but that we look at the issue in the round.
It is very important that the Government do not only talk about the growth areas in London, the southeast and the south Midlands, but that they also develop a strategy for the north. In the north, they are going to tackle housing demands, boost jobs and boost investment in the three northern regions. That is very important indeed. But to achieve that, we need an engine to carry it out. The regional development agencies will play a key role. I mention that because the party opposite, if and when it comes back to power, intends to abolish the RDAs. Yet, the RDAs are the key to carrying that out.
Before I turn to that, perhaps noble Lords will allow me to indulge myself as chairman of Warrington Wolves. My noble friend Lady Billingham talked about the community and the part that sport plays. We all know that sport is an essential element for many people. My noble friend is sad because Leeds United have temporarily lost their position, but I think that that is only temporary.
I mention Warrington Wolves because last night, in the national sport industry awards—I would not have been able to say that until last night—they won the Best Sport in the Community Award, after competing against national companies, such as McDonalds, the Bank of Scotland, the Daily Telegraph, and even small organisations such as Wimbledon AFC and the Bradford Bulls. But they came out on top—although I am biased—deservedly so because of the amount of time that they spend in providing for the community. They especially provide for schoolchildren who do not particularly want to go to school—they want to play truant and are not interested in lessons—and children who are bullied. When children are brought to our new stadium, it is amazing to see how they develop because our computer programmes are geared to make it interesting for them.
They meet the stars—their local heroes—that they see on the rugby field. The interest that they develop is amazing. I entirely agree with my noble friend about the importance that sport plays. It plays a key role for those kiddies. We receive a number of letters from headteachers who say how pleased they are with what we are doing. I have gone into a little detail about this because I think that it is important. But this could not happen, nor would it happen, if it was not for the people carrying it out; namely, the young people at the club—Sean Mellor and Debbie Blackburn—and Neil Kelly from the local authority. It is the working of the club and the local authority in the community that has enabled us to win that award.
I turn now to the role that the Regional Development Agency will play if the economies of the north are to be developed. The Government have proposed nine pathfinder areas, four of which are in the north-west. It is very important for east Lancashire, which is an area that I represented in Parliament before I represented Warrington. No one was more bothered than myself when we saw the troubles that occurred in Burnley that could have spread

1127
further into east Lancashire. There was, first, the decline of major industries, particularly textiles, and, secondly, the abandonment of many homes, plus the clash of racial elements that occurred in that area.
I do not think that a lot needs to be said about the need to develop areas in both Manchester and Salford. Merseyside was referred to in an excellent speech that outlined the difficulties that are faced in Merseyside. However, the optimism for the future displayed by the noble Lord gives us hope, but that is part of being a pathfinder. Of course, Oldham and Rochdale have similar problems to those that occurred in east Lancashire.
The NWDA is involved in all of those areas. It is involved in the north-west, east Manchester and Liverpool. It is equally involved in the west lakes regeneration. People think of the Lake District, but they do not think of the west side or going to Barrow, Whitehaven and Workington, and the beautiful adjoining countryside. That area also needs help, which is why the work of the RDA is so important. The RDA is a member of the North West Housing Board. It has already allocated £516 million to be spent in the next two years. It supports the priorities that are set out in the regional housing strategy.
Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister, when he set out the progress report, entitled, Making It Happen The Northern Way, charged the northern RDAs to lead on the preparations and proposals on bringing about the northern growth corridor. The RDAs will lead in developing important local economies; they will support activities for the provision and creation of sites, ensure that brownfield sites are available in accordance with the plan and bring them forward to meet demand; they will support the development of countryside parks and forests; and they will support the development of the skills agenda. We will be unable to carry out these programmes unless we have a skilled workforce to bring them about. The RDAs are also charged with forging business links and bringing in business support.
All of these activities offer hope, particularly for the region in which I live, and it is absolutely essential that we develop them. Without the Regional Development Agency we would lack the engine to carry us forward to achieve our goal.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Thornton for introducing this important debate.
The Government have placed urban renaissance at the heart of their policies for regeneration, social inclusion and sustainability. Their support for these policies has been provided by better targeted programmes and resources, and clear strategic frameworks. Not least, the Government's support for these policies has been provided by unparalleled sustained growth and low inflation in the economy, which has offered stability and an incentive to investment.
1128
The £22 billion sustainable communities plan of action launched by the Government last year is already making a difference to people's lives. It is not only, of course, a matter of providing more money from central government; as many speakers have already said, local communities must be genuinely engaged in consultation and in decision making. We need to redevelop in many parts of our society a sense of civic pride and a sense that people can take charge of their own destiny.
The business community, too, is part of the partnership for regeneration and renaissance. Private sector involvement, investment and enterprise are critical to successful regeneration. In a city such as mine, Leeds, there is no way that public resources can possibly meet more than a fraction of what is needed for regeneration. If there is one thing missing in the contributions so far, it is a recognition of the vital role that the private sector and private investment has to play. It is as important as social partnerships.
The requirement by the Government that local councils and their local strategic partnerships must produce a 10 to 15 year community strategy for their areas brings these strands together. A local strategic partnership in Leeds—the Leeds Initiative—has been in place since 1990 and has played a vital role in bringing continued growth and success to the city. Leeds is a major financial business services centre but has strength in diversity across a range of industry and commerce. In recent months, Leeds has received a string of accolades: Britain's best city for business; best place in Britain to live; visitor city of the year; the favourite UK university destination; and, not least, top city for night clubs, which is very important to the city's economy.
But, despite this success, the city council and its Leeds Initiative strategic partners recognise that major problems remain for regeneration, social inclusion and sustainability. There remain unacceptable degrees of inequality in unemployment, job opportunities, housing standards, education and skills achievement, health and crime. Successive governments—not only the present one—have struggled to deal with the paradox, to square the circle, of such prosperity in cities and, right next to them, enormous inequalities. These issues in Leeds are squarely addressed in its community strategy, Vision for Leeds 2004 to 2020, recently published by the Leeds Initiative following widespread consultation and the involvement of the community.
Support from and partnership with central government is crucial in producing solutions to deeply entrenched problems. I have time to touch on only two examples of such action in Leeds. The Sure Start programmes have been mentioned by a number of speakers. In Leeds there are eight such programmes, bringing together a range of initiatives offering early learning, childcare and family support services to young children and to families. The leading players in these partnerships are not principally the council; they involve family service units, the Children's Society, a

1129
primary care trust, community health, a NHS trust and an independent group. More than 5,000 people have benefited to date.
Sure Start has been a great success. It has helped children access childcare and early education; helped families engage with supportive services; helped access training and jobs; provided debt counselling; and aided healthier eating. As I understand it, the Government's new children's centre programme will be the vehicle to take forward the Sure Start programmes. Leeds has an ambitious programme for 19 children's centres in wards with the highest levels of disadvantage in the city and, indeed, some of the highest in the country. I hope that these successful programmes will be taken forward.
I turn now to the role of regional development agencies. Government support from the centre is delivered not only through local councils but through a range of agencies, and I should like to say a few words about the role of the RDAs. In my region—Yorkshire Forward—the Government have correctly identified the need for regional development agencies to develop strong regional strategies, priorities and policies. Economically stronger regions are needed to take the pressure off the overheated south-east of England as well as to solve many of their own problems. The recent initiative of the Deputy Prime Minister and the regional development agencies of Yorkshire, the north-east and the north-west to start the process of building on the strengths of northern England in the northern way is to be welcomed.
Yorkshire is not only a region of major cities—although there are five of those—but also has a wealth of smaller urban and market townships which form an important part of the character and vitality of the region. Yorkshire Forward has used part of the grant from central government to support these smaller townships in developing local strategic partnerships committed to a vision and practical plan of action to take forward a renaissance in those parts of the region.
A second example of regeneration and sustainable action by Yorkshire Forward is to be found on the Holderness coast, where coastal erosion threatens the future of the caravan parks that are an important part of the local economy in that coastal area of the region. Yorkshire Forward is working in partnership with the East Riding Council, the Environment Agency, English Nature, the Countryside Agency and local communities to develop a plan of action. Over time, it is intended to move caravan developments some 200 to 500 metres inland, so ensuring a 50-year or longer life span for them. At the same time it is intended to implement infrastructure changes to improve and support caravan developments.
It would be impractical and vastly expensive to try to stop coastal erosion at Holderness. In fact, the erosion at Holderness provides much of the sand for beaches in Cleethorpes. I am told that if we stop the erosion, within two years Cleethorpes would lose most of its beaches. It also helps to recharge sediment at Spurn Point sandbanks, which support large amounts of wildlife. This is a far cry from the issues of
1130
regeneration in our big cities, but it is all part of supporting local communities to ensure regeneration and sustainability.
The Government play an important role in supporting local communities through clear strategic priorities, backed up with funding and partnership building. This is true for local communities, whether in our big cities such as Leeds, our smaller urban centres such as Barnsley or Wakefield, or our rural communities such as the Holderness coast. I hope that the Government not only remain in office but stay steady on this course of support for regeneration.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to concentrate my remarks mainly on the support given by the Government to the local communities in the town of Burnley. I declare an interest in Burnley— an emotional interest that came about due to the difficulties that Burnley experienced when serious disturbances erupted in the town almost three years ago.
Following the disturbances, I was invited to lead the task force that the local authority put together to inquire into the causes of the unrest and subsequent violence and to make recommendations that might help to avoid a recurrence of what had happened over three very sad days in the history of a proud town and its very proud people.
The report of the task force contained more than 80 recommendations, many of which required assistance from central government. Time does not allow me to mention all the areas of concern that were identified. Suffice it to say that many of the problems that needed to be addressed by central government were in a sense quite predictable, given that Burnley, like many other areas in the north-west and other parts of the country, shared an inheritance of decades of underinvestment that had led to many economic and community problems. There were feelings of social exclusion and there was high unemployment and bad housing—a large number of unoccupied and derelict houses in some cases surrounded people who had invested their life's work in property that was, to all intents and purposes, worth just a fraction of what they had paid for it.
Some of the residents were trapped—they had no chance of moving, no chance of selling and moving on, and the value of their property was at rock bottom. I shall always remember looking at the boards outside some of those houses, especially up in the Daneshouse area, which carried the legend, "Best offer so far £1,200". Yes, my Lords, £1,200.
In my introduction to the summary of the main task force report that was entitled, Burnley Speaks—Who Listens, I said:
"Nobody can predict if Government at a local, regional or national level will act on the findings and recommendations contained in the report. If, however, the clear warning signs about the levels of deprivation, the lack of effective communication with the people of the town and the disillusionment felt by many young people in Burnley are ignored, then our time will have been wasted and an opportunity for real change and progress will have been lost".

1131
I am happy to inform your Lordships that central government responded, and they responded quickly and positively.
Among other initiatives, the Government responded quickly to the call for a strategic partnership to be set up, with the help of the local authority, the regional development agency and others. This partnership involved all sectors of the community, such as businesses, local authorities and other public bodies which are responsible for making sure that the local recommendations of the report would be followed up.
The partnership approach is essential. It would be a serious mistake if central government sought to dictate everything from Whitehall; any drift towards direction rather than a partnership approach must be avoided.
The assistance given to local communities in the various programmes for neighbourhood renewal and regeneration could take up most of this debate. They were much needed, much welcomed, and I, for one, am pleased that they are under way. I feel that the people of Burnley and surrounding areas in the north-west have been listened to. An illustration of what is happening at the point of helping people is the Market Renewal Pathfinder programme, known as Elevate East Lancashire. The programme is designed to pilot ways of addressing low demand in the housing market in nine areas of the north and midlands. The Government have allocated £0.5 billion over the current spending review period for this programme.
In the discussions that took place when the programme was at the consultation stage, it was expected that the bureaucracy involved would be "light touch". I have to say to the Minister that there is a feeling among some of the people charged with implementing the programme that there is strong central government control over the policy direction of the pathfinders. That may require some adjustment.
I accept that it is right for central government to set targets and outcomes; all Governments like to know what they are getting for the people's money and set national planning frameworks in various areas. I respectfully say to my noble friend that this is fine at national level but it is wrong to expect all national agendas to be relevant to all communities. They are not. Access to housing may be the dominant housing issue nationally, but it certainly is not in Burnley.
Should we be viewing housing in places such as Burnley, with small terraced housing designed in the 19th century, as appropriate to the needs of the 21st century? Neighbourhood renewal must be more than the numbers of housing units; it must take into account the changing needs of families.
I would not want my comments to be misinterpreted. In my view, the Government have responded to the need to take a fresh look at strategic planning and have given much needed hope to many in Burnley and other places. Working with the communities, through the local authority, much progress has been made.
1132
It is important to recognise more clearly the legitimacy of local government in exercising civic leadership. Most councils have a very clear understanding of the needs of their areas and are certainly viewed as being responsible for leadership in a crisis. This was the case with the immediate consequences of the Burnley 2001 disturbances. Central government can and should be confident that local councils would act responsibly and provide the necessary leadership at times of crisis.
During the time I spent in Burnley and since, I have formed a personal strong view, shared by Burnley council, that the structure of local government, currently under review in the north-west, is very important in helping local communities. I ask the Minister to urge the Deputy Prime Minister to look favourably on proposals for unitary local government that can provide clear, easily communicated, access to council services, also enabling far more effective cross-service and partnership delivery on the ground to local communities.
I would like to touch briefly on two other issues that come from my involvement with the people of Burnley. First, I give a warm welcome to the Government's recognition of the need to involve the faith sector in helping communities. The assistance received from the faith communities was extremely valuable as the town tackled the aftermath of the disturbances. I echo the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester about the role played by the faith community. I will long remember the Bishop of Burnley bringing together the Churches and the mosques in Burnley to discuss the disturbances.
Secondly, I refer to a recent initiative by the community safety partnership in Burnley. I hope that the Government will examine what has gone on with a view to encouraging other local authorities to consider it. Last week it was my privilege, together with television presenter Mr Nick Ross, to launch Burnley's community safety network.
Together with Burnley Borough Council, the company, Community Communications Network, along with Strategic Partnership Television, introduced a partnership project to use the latest broadband technology to convey information on screens sited across Burnley town centre and outlying locations. When it comes to improving safety, disseminating important information, appeals in the case of identifying criminals and those whose behaviour is anti-social, the potential is enormous. The system can be updated at 10 minutes' notice, which means that it could be used to help locate missing persons. It has already, in another area, found a missing child by getting the message on to screens in the various strategic sites.
People can receive information in places such as cafés, burger bars, hospital waiting rooms, the local bus station and other strategically chosen sites. There is also a facility for a hotline link to the statutory bodies such as the police, fire and ambulance services.
It was suggested by Nick Ross at last week's launch that valuable advice could be conveyed over the system about fire prevention and the need for preventive action to avoid the many unnecessary deaths caused by fires in the home.

1133
I make this point because one of the things that struck me when I first went to Burnley was fear. People were afraid of walking on the streets; they were afraid in certain parts of the town. I think that the communication system will do a lot to reduce some of the fears that people have.
Finally, I thank the Government for the way in which they have started to tackle the problems caused by the decades of neglect. It is important that central government should link to communities through the right means— legitimate and properly resourced councils. Learning from the Burnley experience, where they do become directly involved with local communities, they should not promise what cannot be delivered.
4.39 p.m.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Thornton on providing the occasion for some really wonderful speeches this afternoon. They ranged from the rather sobering observations of my noble friend Lord Clarke to the barnstorming performance of my noble friend Lady Billingham. If her debating style is any reflection of her sporting prowess, it indicates that her tennis style is probably a vicious serve followed by a very sharp volley.
I intend to take up only a small part of the generous allocation of time. I am aware that there are several equally important contributions still to come, but I wanted briefly to address the matter of central government support for the arts and specifically for theatre, and how important this has been and continues to be to the health and wellbeing of local communities.
Before doing so, I must declare an interest as a former executive director of the National Theatre and a board member of the Almeida Theatre and of Welsh National Opera. I am also a trustee of the Roundhouse where, thanks in part to significant funds from government sources, restoration work has begun today to bring this beautiful building back into use in ways that will benefit not only the community in Camden—where the Roundhouse is located, and which has already been extensively mentioned by my noble friend Lady Thornton—but the whole of London.
I have spent most of my working life in the theatre, specifically in the subsidised sector, and I remember with no pleasure the difficulties faced by my industry in the 1980s and early 1990s when it appeared that central government—with honourable individual exceptions—neither understood nor was interested in understanding the value of the arts, whether nationally or locally, in building and sustaining communities. Those were dark days and a great deal of damage was done.
In 1997, when the present Government were elected, the arts were in bad need of serious investment. Theatre in particular was in a precarious state throughout the country, but like everyone else we had to wait while Prudence got her act together. In 2000, she came up trumps. The Arts Council secured an extra £100 million of government funding for the arts. In 2001, £25 million of that new money was allocated to theatre, bringing Arts Council England's annual
1134
investment in theatre to £100 million—a 72 per cent uplift and the largest ever funding increase to the sector.
Tomorrow, the Arts Council of England will publish research which shows that this injection of funds has had:
"a major economic and artistic impact on theatre in England".
As part of the research, three local theatres have been looked at closely and their local economic impact evaluated. I am afraid that, since the findings are embargoed until tomorrow, I cannot share with your Lordships any of the detailed information that they contain. However, I can say without giving too much away that they reveal beneficial effects both directly, in the employment of local staff and use of local suppliers, for example, and indirectly on local economies where there is a thriving theatre—and there are far more of them now than there were 10 years ago.
Theatres help to sustain jobs, generate additional economic activity and act as forces for economic and social regeneration. Just as importantly they, along with other arts organisations, play a role in building civic pride and underpinning community identity and values. I will not detain the House by listing the many examples that I could supply to these effects. Above all, the arts—and theatre in particular, being my special interest—provide enjoyment and enrich our lives. I believe that this Government have understood the crucial importance of valuing the arts both nationally and locally and have made a real commitment to their beliefs by putting new money behind them. That is one of the many achievements of which they can be proud. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, can assure the House that this fine record will be sustained.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, although I entirely endorse the thrust of her remarks and the focus of this debate, would she welcome, as I do, the words of the Secretary of State with responsibility for the arts who has given the strongest support in a recent speech about the importance of valuing the arts not only for their external impact on communities but for themselves?
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I tried to touch on that when I talked about enjoyment and enrichment. The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that, coming from where I come from, my commitment is entirely to art for its own sake, whatever form it is in. However, it is also true that, where art is delivered and created and is excellent, it has many other benefits, which we should also value.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Thornton has secured this timely and important debate and I congratulate her on her dynamic opening. I have already learnt a great deal from other noble Lords and I shall no doubt learn more as the afternoon goes on.

1135
I am very pleased to hear that the north is in full swing and that sport and the theatre are also being encompassed in this debate.
My own contribution is not jolly. It relates to how government policy has contributed to improvements for drug users in communities. I declare an interest as the chair of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, a special health authority set up by the Government in 2001. I will refer to some of our work and to the work of the Centre for Ethnicity and Health supported by the Department of Health. I believe that this will provide examples of qualities other noble Lords have mentioned—sensitivity, empowerment and partnership working with evaluation.
There have been deliberate attempts to push decision making and action down to community level. I shall refer to a couple of examples. Most recently, the Children Bill now going through your Lordships' House emphasises the need for local partnerships, as does the consultation White Paper on public health.
I now turn specifically to the issue of drugs. We all know that drugs can devastate individuals, families and communities. The updated drugs strategy in 2002 promised more resources, more support for parents, carers and families, the expansion of trade and services, including in the criminal justice system, better targeting of communities with the greatest need, strengthening of workforce capacity and improved services in communities affected by crack cocaine use. Funding for treating drug misusers will have risen by 44 per cent between 2002 and 2005.
The National Treatment Agency, which I chair, was set up to double the number of people in treatment from 100,000 in 1998 to 200,000 in 2008. It also set targets for reducing waiting times for treatment, improving effectiveness by retaining people in treatment, improving staffing levels, improving performance information, involving users and carers and having attention to the diverse needs of black and ethnic minorities, women and young people. A template for local drug action teams to develop treatment systems has been established. It will be evident that this ambitious agenda is only possible through delivery at community level.
The National Treatment Agency works through a network of regional teams based at government offices throughout England and there is close liaison with other services. One of our key functions is to help drug action teams—there are 149 all working in communities—to set plans and to monitor those plans. I visit those regularly and I see signs of great improvement to local drug treatment systems. More people are entering treatment, waiting times are going down and more staff are entering the service. As one worker said to me recently:
"It is a good time to be working in the drug treatment field; there is more money around and the National Treatment Agency has encouraged better engagement in communities and a more rigorous approach".
Surely, that is testimony of how national policy translates effectively into local practice.
1136
The evidence has been endorsed by a recent independent stakeholders' audit of treatment agencies and drug action teams, which includes users and carers. It indicates that both the quality and quantity of drugs treatment has improved over the past two years thanks to central initiatives.
I will now briefly describe a research initiative introduced by the Department of Health and carried out by the Centre for Ethnicity and Health at the University of Central Lancashire under the leadership of Professor Kamlesh Patel from Bradford. The aim of the research is to establish the needs of black and minority ethnic groups in communities long recognised as neglected.
Community groups could apply for involvement in the research and 47 projects were approved. Two hundred and four people from the community projects were trained by the University of Central Lancashire to engage with communities to assess needs from which its future action could stem. Those recruited were male and female, from different age groups, and ranged from those with no formal qualifications to those with PhDs.
The successful engagement with communities also demanded matching of researchers to particular groups with particular languages, ethnicity and cultures. The project worked across local structures and identified deficiencies in services for black and minority ethnic groups; for example, in relation to language, to cultural difficulties, the involvement of women and so on. Importantly, it empowered the communities involved to work cohesively to solve their own problems. The community groups and the agencies developed greater understanding and insights into how they could work together more effectively. At an individual level, many of those trained went on to secure employment in the health and social care field. Others went on to higher education. Many spoke of personal growth and increased confidence.
Community groups spoke of how the project had enabled them to raise their profile, seek funding, recruit volunteers, network with other groups and use new skills. One of the most significant outcomes of the project was the recruitment of more people from black and minority ethnic groups into health and social care and the drugs field. This is exciting work and is expanding and continuing with further government funding. Two reports are available which I am happy to share with noble Lords who might be interested.
Would the Minister agree that the setting up of strong central systems with a regional brief can serve communities at a local level'? The work of the National Treatment Agency and the community engagement model I have described demonstrate how not only funding but partnerships and sympathetic approaches at local and national level can give rise to local initiatives and can be a powerful force to change.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I, too, want to congratulate my noble friend Lady Thornton on initiating the debate. I want to concentrate my remarks on the rural areas and the support into rural

1137
communities. I declare an interest as a dairy farmer in Cheshire, a director of Dairy Farmers of Britain, a chairman of the Cheshire branch of the Country Land and Business Association and a board member of the Rural Recovery Board in Cheshire.
Agriculture underpins the rural economy. Your Lordships' House does not need reminding of the crisis agriculture has faced in recent times. The interdependence of agriculture and the wider rural economy was highlighted during the foot and mouth epidemic.
Yesterday, I attended a conference to launch the strategy document of the English Food and Farming Partnership, an industry-wide body drawn together and facilitated by Defra to take forward the conclusions of the Curry commission on the future of agriculture. For the first time, government are championing collaborative and co-operative action between farmers and the food chain to increase the strategic options facing the farming community as it comes to terms with the changes due to begin next year in the reform of the subsidy system of the common agricultural policy.
With the budget of £1 million split 50 per cent to government and 50 per cent to industry partners, the EFFP will promote best practice and joined-up delivery. For example, when retailers start an initiative to raise the price of milk to pass back higher returns to producers, it should be a simple step for hospitals to support and widen the initiative by agreeing higher prices for their suppliers.
Collaborative action also necessitates a review of the competition laws and the legislative and fiscal framework. As agricultural barriers to trade internationally are reduced, we must ensure that enterprise and innovation are not hampered by a comparative UK disadvantage. Would my noble friend the Minister agree to look at the provisions of the Capra Volstead Act which applies in the United States whereby one organisation can control 100 per cent of market supply to see how this could apply in the UK? Agriculture is at an exciting threshold of change.
Central government, through its Kyoto obligations on climate change, can alter the balance of opportunities on renewable energy sources. I refer here to biofuels where, once again, agriculture could "dig for victory". Rural areas regard the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas production as non-negotiable, given the potential long-term damage to the rural economy from climate change. Central government's support must take account of local communities' desire for technology choice in delivering national Kyoto targets. In particular, one medium-sized CHP biomass plant involves far less landscape impact and spreads the benefits of alternative non-food jobs and incomes far more widely than the equivalent output from onshore wind turbines. Would the Minister agree that biomass production could be encouraged to provide a credible alternative? Would he also agree that the use of energy in new development be given a locus in planning policy? Local planning authorities could be encouraged to ensure that new development addresses realistically biomass, CHP, solar and other technologies in order to reduce the requirement for widespread onshore wind turbines.
1138
Following the tumultuous events of the foot and mouth epidemic, central government facilitated the regional development agencies to regenerate rural communities and much activity is focused on regional tourism and market towns. In Cheshire, we are now in year three of the seven-year programme investing £12 million in entrepreneurial advertising. The West Midlands is also undertaking a similar programme, Enterprise Works.
Rural areas must also be enabled to compete effectively with their urban neighbours. This means they require the same access to technology and modern communications. There is a recognition by central government that broadband is vital to rural areas and they are committed to making broadband available throughout the UK by the end of 2005. The Government are spending £1 billion in trying to get the public sector bodies to connect to broadband. In recognition of this, central government needs to make it easier, through incentives to business, to piggyback into the infrastructure. Rural areas need to know what is happening in relation to this and through seeing the success of connecting greater areas, thereby be encouraged towards greater take-up.
Tremendous strides have been made towards the economic regeneration that is vital if communities are to thrive. There is still more that can be achieved. I commend the policies currently being undertaken by this Government.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, I wonder whether when my noble friend Lady Thornton tabled this topic for debate she expected such a wide-ranging discussion. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hoyle on the success of Warrington Wolves on their community activities. I am only relieved that they are not as successful on the pitch, which is why I shall be attending the Rugby League Cup Final with Wigan rather than he with Warrington.
I begin by declaring my interest as the leader of Wigan local authority. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I am a committed localist and a strong advocate of supporting local communities through local government. It is essential that local government works in partnership with local communities, local and other agencies and central government. We all use the word "partnership". It is easy to use but difficult to achieve because it means that everyone has to give up a little. But the result is success and we need to learn that.
I want to celebrate the fact that there are local variations. We are not a unitary state and people are different in different parts of the country. Local and central government have a shared objective in improving public services to hard-pressed local communities and local authorities are key in achieving that for three reasons. First, they are accountable to local people. Their accountability is partly through the ballot box. The mind is sharpened by the approach of 10 June—or in my case perhaps 26 May when, as your Lordships agreed to a postal ballot for the North West, the ballot papers will be issued. Accountability is more than through the ballot box. It means that we must be available to our local communities throughout the year and we must ensure that we can work in partnership.

1139
The second reason is that local government is committed to its local area and understands their needs. Councillors must live in the area. They are part of those communities and understand what local areas need.
Thirdly, local government can take a holistic and strategic approach to tackling local problems. My noble friend Lady Massey talked about drugs. Locally, there are so many different facets to the drugs problem. It affects health—my noble friend's particular concern—crime and anti-social behaviour and family stability. Locally, only the local authority can pull all of those issues together. As the leader of a local authority I have always believed that local government has a duty to do what we are supposed to be doing—to deliver as well as we can the services for which we have direct responsibilities.
I have to acknowledge the Government's contribution to improving the relationship with local authorities. As I was elected to local government in 1978, I experienced the period which began in 1979 of the Thatcher and Major governments. I know what it was like then and what their attitudes were to local government, particularly to Labour local government.
I should like to touch on two issues on which I think the Government are doing an excellent job. The first is the measurement of local authority's performance, which is being done through the independent Audit Commission. A comprehensive performance assessment has shown that, in the first round, more than 50 per cent of local authorities were in the "excellent" or "good" categories. That result may have surprised some, but it did not surprise those of us who are well versed in local authorities.
The Government have gone on to provide support for local authorities in the "weak" and "poor" categories. I have read the typical remarks of the leader of the Conservatives. On the one hand, he says that they will abolish the CPA; on the other, he was bragging about how many of his authorities were in the "excellent" category.
In performance measurement and the Innovations Forum—I should remind Members that I am the joint chair of that body with Nick Raynsford, the local government Minister—the Government have developed a much more mature and measured relationship with excellent councils. I have spent many hours in this House discussing the problems of bed blocking and how we can get round it. Through the Innovations Forum, local authorities, local health partners and the Department of Health are working on systems that will reduce the need to admit older people to hospital in the first place. That can only be good, not only in terms of saving money but in terms of the experience of older people.
From my local experience I should also like to highlight the Government's support for local authority housing through arm's length housing management companies. Despite their being a Government of spin—not that I would accuse my noble friend the Minister of being a spinner—they have not made enough of this success. My local authority was in one of the first tranches of ALMOs.
1140
We received initial investment of £58 million. That was recently followed by further investment of £79 million and has been topped up by local funding. It has enabled new investment in all of our 26,000 council houses, providing security and fencing and improvements such as new kitchens and bathrooms, better insulation and major structural repairs to roofs and so on. We will achieve the Government's decency standards two years ahead of the Government's deadline.
As one might expect, the result of that has been improved tenant satisfaction. Satisfaction levels are now over 90 per cent, and it is 97 per cent in the areas covered by some contractors. There has also been increased demand for council housing, which is good news for us. The improved estates have reaped economic benefits. We have partnering arrangements with contractors who will take on and train local people so that they can get jobs. It is excellent news.
The Government have ensured that the programme works partly by allowing only good quality housing services to become ALMOs. They have done that by ensuring that two-star authorities are involved and by ensuring that the money allocated is used effectively. It has been a challenge to do that within the short time available, but we are on target to spend our first allocation. We are going to bring housing in Wigan up to 21st century standards, and the Government should take much of the credit for it.
The Government have not marched forward consistently in supporting local communities and councils; in fact, sometimes they have marched in reverse. That is partly due to the fact that not all parts of the Government have understood the need to let go and that everything cannot be managed from the centre. However, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister does not need any lessons in consistency from the party opposite—which in local government can promise contradictory things to different streets; indeed, sometimes it can promise them to different ends of the same street.
The future of local government lies in the hands of the local public service agreements. My authority has been part of round one of the agreements, which have been successful because the targets have matched both local and national requirements and stretch local authority performance with welcome financial incentives. Much has been done since the Government came to office to help deprived communities. Much more needs to be done. Central government, local government and local communities need to work together. That is the way forward. I think that the Government are on the right lines.
5.6 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for raising this debate. I am particularly grateful because this is one debate in which I feel that I need not speak to the House on race. I was wondering how I would fare in such a debate, so I decided to begin with a little history about where we were, and to end with an issue on which I feel we have done much and been successful.

1141
As I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, when one speaks so late in a debate one has to think of new points to raise.
As I understand it, a unitary system of English local government was suggested as far back as 1969 by the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, which identified that strategic authorities were fragmented and responsibilities unequally divided between counties and boroughs. But it was not until the early 1990s that this idea was put into practice by the then government.
In 1995 there was a two-tier system of local government in which a few regional councils exercised strategic functions and many more district councils provided housing and more local services. That was the case in Scotland, Wales and England outside major urban areas. There was also a third, very local tier of parish/community government dealing with minor tax-raising powers and a narrow range of statutory/ non-statutory functions. After 1996, that system was replaced by single-tier all-purpose authorities, the objectives of which were to improve costs and community identities.
In Scotland and Wales the single-tier authorities seemingly reflected the party political advantage in areas. rather than considering their size or natural boundaries. In England, the two-tier system was replaced by a "packet of allsorts", according to P. Waddington, in 1995. Under that system some counties kept the two-tier system but within reduced county areas. Dorset was in that category. Some counties created urban unitary authorities that split from pre-existing counties, which became small "hybrid" counties. By 1998, a total of 46 unitary authorities had been created in England, leaving 21 "new" counties. At that point it was decided to set up the Audit Commission. The Audit Commission's role was to promote change by identifying best practice and drawing attention to inadequacies; not by questioning individual policies of local authorities, but by reviewing their approach.
The reorganisation of local government had many shortfalls. Despite the Government's clear attempts to support the changes in local government by overseeing the local authorities, the reorganisation caused some problems. Noble Lords may recall that senior local government officials argued that the change to unitary single-tier authorities should have been preceded by a review of local government. That was not so, and Davis reported on that in 1997. He pointed out that an,
"extraordinary feature was the way in which the whole process was founded on the unitary concept but without any attempt to articulate a rationale".
When the reform was first introduced, it was greeted with some hostility by local government, as if central government were trying to take power away from local authorities—especially if they were run by the Opposition. Therefore, the unitary principle was gradually undermined by local authorities trying to defend their interests against neighbouring authorities, seeking hostile takeovers or mergers.
Some main problems identified with the new system included the size of the new authorities, and the creation of many smaller authorities. None the less,
1142
the changes took place. There was also disruption and diversion of time and resources, which impacted on staff at all levels. Organisational, funding and service disruption was caused to the work of local voluntary and independent providers. The many new unitary councils had necessarily smaller budgets, leading to loss of economies of scale, less choice for clients and reduction in the level of central support services. However, smaller and more local authorities were also seen as good because they were potentially more accessible, leading to better knowledge of the area.
I gave that history so that I could talk a little bit about the reorganisation of local government and how beneficial it was to health authorities, in that smaller units, especially in cities, were able to reflect more closely the specific needs of certain areas. The relationship between social services and health authorities was given a fresh impetus, giving hope for potential improvement throughout.
However, there were still some problems in the relations between health authorities and local government, because they were complicated when the health authorities had to relate to three or more new authorities instead of the previous one. Duplication was a serious problem, and one health authority was heard to say that it had three times the amount of work to do. Nevertheless, the reorganisation of local government had a lot of potential and most health authorities felt that that had to be realised. It is important for me to say here that that potential has now matured and the full benefits of the reorganisation are now being realised.
The view held by councillors and senior staff is that the changes in personnel in key management positions in social services, with posts left unfilled for lengthy periods, resulted in stalling arrangements and a slow pace of collaboration with partner agencies. However, from April 1993, major changes were introduced by the NHS and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. That gave health and local authorities the main responsibilities for arrangements providing care in the community, with the local authorities taking the lead.
I mention that because, no sooner was that accepted than the snags became apparent. When the new Government came in, we were able to look again at how we could reorganise without reorganising. The first and fundamental requirement of change to local community care was that there had to be understanding of change at every level. Local authorities could not make superficial changes, believing that businesses could continue much the same as before. To prevent any feeling of threat from the changes, information had to be continuously provided to staff, users and carers, and a gradual approach to change had to be managed.
Parents and children commented that the council was developing strategies for public consultation and were drawing in representatives from every area. They felt that that was good. Young people were generally positive about the support that they received from staff. The communication grew between social workers, hospitals and all those in higher positions. The policy changes now involve systems and processes for collecting and analysing data better to inform planning and monitoring arrangements. On balance, central government's role has

1143
been to develop a more defined, less intrusive and generally much more productive system. I believe that we are seeing the results now in both social services and the National Health Service.
I said that I was trying to inform myself of the history; I hope that I have not bored your Lordships.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Pendry: My Lords, I join all those who have congratulated the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on securing this important debate. I wish to declare my interest as president of the Football Foundation, which, as noble Lords will know, does great work within local communities.
Notwithstanding the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh, I must say that the foundation is a true working partnership between government and football. That is to say, its partners are the Football Association and the Premier League, each of which gives identical amounts of money and, by so doing, forges a relationship that is unique, with an aim to put an end to the barriers that hitherto have prevailed and which have left many on the periphery of the game of soccer.
However, within the context of this debate, the role of central government is identical to the aims of the foundation. Although football, especially at the grassroots, is the main recipient of the millions of pounds that the foundation has pumped into the game of football, it is by no means directed at football alone. However, the foundation recognises that if it is to make full use of football's power as the gateway and the driver to multi-sport provision, it must open its doors to all members of all communities, regardless of ability, gender or ethnicity. In that way, it meets its aims.
With £52.5 million available to the communities every year, the foundation is therefore reaching out to some of the most vulnerable members of our society. I shall give a few examples of the foundation's work within communities. A grant from the foundation to Myton school in Warwickshire has enabled it to have a floodlit, state-of-the-art artificial turf pitch. The foundation has helped a community scheme in Liverpool for disabled football players on Merseyside. In Hull, Dads Against Drugs has received £95,000 from the foundation; that body has been most effective in combating drug abuse among youngsters there.
From hundreds of new grass roots facilities, to social inclusion projects, crime reduction programmes, anti-obesity and healthy lifestyle schemes and education initiatives, the foundation is using the game to make a lasting impact within communities. Many people, for reasons such as poverty or simply the lack of opportunity, have not been afforded the same chances to play football or other sports that millions of us take for granted. The foundation is determined to break down the barriers and to bring opportunities to play football within the reach of everyone.
In less than four years, 750 projects worth £200 million have been supported. So good is football's ability to attract inward investment, it in essence means that for
1144
every £1 invested by government into the foundation, a further £5 is delivered into sport in our communities. In my view, there is no better example of how government can support local communities than by entering into partnerships with sport. The Football Foundation is showing the way.
I know that negotiations on the future arrangements of the foundation are ongoing. After what has been an incredible start, I look forward to many more years of the Government working in partnership with football and to their matching contributions helping other communities to deliver so many different aspects of the Government's agenda. Perhaps one of the most important schemes is the Positive Futures programme, a scheme aimed at offering young people a new start, which is a tailor-made grassroots programme diverting youngsters away from crime, drugs and antisocial behaviour. Sixty-eight per cent of the work carried out is based on football. Following the initial eight towns and cities, another 37 new projects have been added, making a total of £3 million from the foundation and £15 million from the Home Office.
To date, over 7,000 youngsters have been helped by these schemes. Speaking at the Arsenal football ground at the expansion of the latest scheme, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said:
"This is 7,000 young people away from the streets and getting their lives on the right track".
The foundation has quickly become not only the best good news story in sport in recent times but also one of the great sporting achievements by any government and we should all be proud of it.
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Baroness has set us a very difficult task: what to select to mention from such a large canvas. But I, too, would like to thank her, while grumbling slightly at the difficulty of it.
There might be a temptation for someone whose background is so rooted in local politics to make a "get your tanks off our local lawns" speech, but I do not want to be negative. However, I follow my noble friend Lady Maddock who referred to a framework that I think, so far as concerns central government, should be minimalist. Noble Lords can decide whether that is a point of political philosophy or Feng Shui. One must define the terms. The closer to the ground, the easier it is to understand what makes up any given community because the boundaries blur. We are all members of a number of communities, not just geographic ones. The community of those who follow a particular soap opera is perhaps not relevant to this debate, but I wrote down that the community of those who follow a particular football team certainly is, because of the social connections, the sense of cohesion and so on that it engenders. I am sorry to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, that I have never understood Rugby League. I support Manchester City, which is often a cue for a chorus of "somebody's got to".
It seems to me that a major role for central government is to set the tone. I wondered whether the noble Baroness selected the debate because it coincides

1145
so neatly with the 25th anniversary of the accession of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. There has been a lot in the media about her style and her effect on a generation of "Thatcher's Children", a syndrome that I recognise. Whether or not one loves her, one must accept that she had an impact. By extension, central government has a responsibility. I recognise that this is a bit tangential but I shall extend the point from central government to Parliament itself. We could do far more to open ourselves up and make it apparent to members of all communities that what happens in this building is not irrelevant and is not something that happens in a parallel universe.
Less tangentially, we need to be aware of who delivers on behalf of central government. Politicians are the least of it to most people. Most people's contact with government at every level is with officials or, to use the more derogatory term, bureaucrats. It does not help confidence if officials are plainly lacking in practical experience. The chief executive of a very substantial local authority recently told me that an official from the ODPM said, "What's it like working in local government?". That was someone who was administering local government programmes. In response, in part, to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, on CPAs, one of the problems is that sometimes quite inexperienced people cost local authorities a lot of money when they go in and are no better, and sometimes a great deal worse, than the local officials they are assessing. Perhaps one partial solution to this would be secondment between the sectors: local government, quangos and business. Secondment would have to be seen not to be a disqualification for promotion. I have heard that it is not always seen as a good thing.
I have often said in this Chamber that I support the community leadership role of local government. Points that I have often made about local government also apply to the third sector, voluntary organisations, to which I pay tribute. They also need to be supported and the support needs to be to the extent that they are free to make mistakes. I am very conscious that the knock-on effect of problems with local authority funding has led to increased reliance on the voluntary sector. To give a single example, I do not know where we would be without the Citizens Advice Bureaux. Increasingly, I hear of problems in voluntary organisations with funding from central government, particularly how long it takes to get decisions from central government which is providing funding. One effect of that is on the staff who work in the organisations. Older workers become used to the uncertainty—though I do not suppose it does their blood pressure a lot of good. Younger ones feel very threatened and vulnerable. The mix of central government and charitable funding is not always easy. Donors tend to think that if central government are involved then it is not for them; they do not need to help out. Of course, everyone is more interested in funding projects than in funding core activities and maintenance. I suppose that that is human nature but
1146
it is a problem. Concentrating on capital and ignoring the revenue needs of existing and new projects is not the way to go.
In the London Assembly, of which I am a member, we have done a certain amount of work on regeneration. In 2002, we looked at how the regeneration industry was working. I suppose that we might have had our prejudices confirmed but we were very impressed by the strength of feeling that came from those in the community who were involved in projects and who came to give evidence. Among the points that they made, which were reflected in our conclusions, was that:
"Community involvement, through continuous dialogue and engagement, is central to successful regeneration, ensuring…local knowledge of an area … maintaining long-term commitments to regeneration proposals, sometimes through long and disruptive building phases, helping to establish … long-term viability … after the funding is finished and the regeneration agencies have gone. Communities need to be supported to become involved in their own regeneration".
That was in 2002. In 2003, a further look at the regeneration scene led us to say that:
"Ongoing reporting and monitoring … creates additional administrative demands and considerable duplication of work".
At the same time one needs to know where the money goes and in this area there is very little co-ordinated reporting that enables one to assess what is best practice. We also commended the commissioning approach; in other words, not competitive bidding where a lot of resources can be applied.
In the last moment or so in which I have to speak, rather than following the right reverend Prelate on capacity building, as I had wanted to do, I shall quote from a report which I received today from the London Churches Group for Social Action, which states:
"There was general agreement that the move over recent decades to increase power at the centre with funding and targets set centrally has encouraged local people to abdicate responsibility and reduced the scope for local stewardship and creativity".
That is a very interesting observation. The report continues:
"The Group … were not convinced that creating more and different local bodies … is the best and most effective way of achieving more local involvement … one just sees the same people on each body wearing different hats".
I could talk at length on the Treasury's role but the clock is against me. I refer to the different innovative funding structures that the Treasury might allow to enable infrastructure funding, to take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham. Can the Minister tell us what has happened to Committee MISC 22, which I understand was set up to undertake a search for innovative funding mechanisms? That might be a question too far for today. I imagine that the letters stand for miscellaneous committee, not Ministers In Secret Conclave.
I agree wholeheartedly with what was said about the plethora of programmes and schemes. Number is not the same as quality. I end on a further note of agreement. I, too, dislike the term "stakeholders", not least because every individual in every community has a stake.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on securing what has been a fairly diffuse debate, if I may say so. I shall not accuse it of being well orchestrated in that every aspect was covered, but certainly we have covered a lot of ground in the past couple of hours.
I think that it must be taken as a given fact that all governments believe that they provide strategies, policies and resources to help and support local communities, however they are defined, but most local communities believe that they do nothing of the sort and that they provide insufficient resources and impose burdens on individual taxpayers and too much centralised control. Undoubtedly the truth lies somewhere in between.
The debate this afternoon has sought to dispel such a view and concentrate largely on the Government's successes. That was not entirely surprising as most of the speakers—probably unusually—were from the Government Benches, with the noble exceptions of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and the noble Lord, Lord Chan, who bravely put their heads above the parapet in this not quite unruly, but unusual, mob of speakers. The debate has not particularly demonstrated a different concept that any government have, or have had, regarding their effect on local communities.
I digress a little as one or two noble Lords attacked the record of the previous Conservative government. That is now fading into memory. I am surprised that noble Lords cannot speak of incidents that are a little more up-to-date. I did not quite understand what the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, said about telling people in one street one thing and people in another street another. I was quite dismayed by the assault of the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, on sport. It is not often that I try to redress balances but I must remind noble Lords opposite that between the early 1990s and 1997 practically every local education authority in this country was run by the Labour Party. Practically every local education authority had a policy of no competition either in sport or in anything else.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, that is absolute fact. Practically every local education authority was agin sport. That cannot be laid at the door of the Conservative Party. I again remind noble Lords opposite that those local education authorities were by and large Labour controlled.
I also remind the House—I am sure that I shall do so without the Minister expiring entirely—that the Conservative Party was the first party under Michael Heseltine to start on regeneration projects. One of those projects took place in Liverpool, where the first stones were laid in the regeneration of that city. That was a remarkable regeneration. I am very fond of the north. I know the cities in the north quite
1148
well. I am delighted that noble Lords opposite feel that they must expostulate at what I am saying but I can vouch for its truth.
We have spent much time in Parliament over the past month debating various pieces of legislation which it is opined will encourage voters to vote, particularly in local and European elections. I am sure that this debate has no connection with that. However, the outcome of those votes will probably not, by and large, be a commentary on either Europe or local authorities, but on the Government and their actions and policies—in short, on the centre. We may learn again that voter apathy sets in when the electorate feels that it has no means of affecting the direction of government, or when it has no relevance to it.
So, should we in this debate today have extolled the virtues of the centre, as, indeed, many have, or should we have looked even more closely at how our communities—cities, rural or urban areas, towns and villages—can help themselves and others? Should we not be looking at how little central government should need to do, rather than how much, and how it should provide more competence to local authorities to do what is needed and to bring projects closer to the ground?
Should we not be learning that the more the Government lay down the blueprint, the less room there is for local decision, for example, in education, housing development, sustainable communities, and the less likely the initiative is to be successful if the local community is not truly involved?
Let us start from the inescapable fact that local government is a creature of central government—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, and I, with our local government experience, would both be the first to admit that that is so—and that local government has to work within increasingly prescriptive volumes of legislation. Let us also acknowledge that government requirements for the money they provide, and the way it is used, are becoming increasingly directive, but also that the actual effect on local communities is governed by how successful any local authority is both politically and administratively in delivering high quality services, which now must be at least equal to government standards, though many, I am glad to say, but by no means all, achieve a much higher standard than that.
On a small canvas the Government have controlled by means of traffic lights, targets, stars and inspection regimes the implementation of their policies. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, drew attention to many of the benefits that have come from such direction. I am the first to acknowledge that projects such as Surestart, the community safety partnerships and the anti-social behaviour policies have had some effect. My local authority has been very much in the forefront of those. But it is local authorities, not central government, which provide community leadership, support and underpin local strategic partnerships. In those areas the Government should be doing all they can regarding neighbourhood renewal policies to ensure that rather than being the impetus for policies generated from the centre, they have the courage and determination truly to devolve that responsibility to the most local administration.

1149
The Sustainable Communities Plan is one area where the Government are beginning to invest a great deal of effort. The commitment to build more than 250,000 houses in the south-east alone will clearly be impossible to achieve without much grief, unless it involves a close relationship with local government. The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, who has left the Chamber, led the Corby Development Corporation with much skill and would probably be the first to admit that urban development corporations are difficult creatures to control. The important task of assembling not just housing, but infrastructure, schooling, community facilities and bringing together people who may not have had any relationship with each other into new communities is far from easy.
The Sustainable Communities programme, which has only been touched on, is a huge policy for this Government. It is also fraught with danger which does and will need a great deal of local community involvement and local authority involvement to work. Together with Members of this House and of another place I had the privilege the other day of travelling to Poundbury to see that new development on the edge of Dorset, which was the brainchild of the Prince of Wales. There the community is being brought together slowly, with 500 or 600 households having been brought together in about five years.
The progress of Sustainable Communities must be measured and taken with great care so that its development is carried out in a way with which we can all live into the future; where everyone will be happy to say that that work has been done and where the communities are able to live together closely. That is only a small aspect of this whole question—one that has been barely touched on in this debate, to my surprise. It is proper that it should be raised. It is an important policy for the Government which has to be handled both at the centre and particularly at local level.
5.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I very much congratulate my noble friend Lady Thornton on calling this debate. I have to say that when I saw its title, which says:
"To call attention to the role which central government play in supporting local communities",
I thought, "about time. I am going to the House to talk about the Sustainable Communities Plan". So the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, may be in for a bit of a shock, because that is all I am going to talk about. I wrote the speech with my advisers well before I heard anything said today. That is not to say that I have not been listening and I shall try to respond to some of the points made; but, although I wished to talk about the Sustainable Communities Plan, virtually everything that has been said came somewhere within my framework.
There is one matter that I regret, which is my only note of discord. Given that the title of the debate is so wide, one could come to this House today to talk about virtually any subject that affects our fellow citizens. I
1150
want to know why there has obviously been an organised boycott by the Conservative Peers. That is clearly the case. There cannot be any other explanation. One of my noble friends misquoted the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, as saying, "There is no such thing as community". Well, we know about that now, do we not? I had never replied to Wednesday debates before but I had one last week, one today and have one next week. It is astonishing that in a wide-ranging debate such as this the Conservative Party has absolutely nothing to say, except for the comments that the noble Baroness has just made from the Front Bench. Given all the expertise of the Conservatives in this House. I find that astonishing.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, there has been absolutely no organised boycott. I do not know why other noble Lords on this side of the House have not found this subject interesting or one to which they could contribute. But there has been nothing either from the Front Bench or the Whips to suggest that people should not take part. I find the Minister's comment rather sad.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is sad. Given that the press used constantly to attack the Deputy Prime Minister for wanting to concrete over our green and pleasant land, one would have thought that the opportunity would have been taken to come and face the music. Having said that, it was the only note of discord that I wished to make and clearly it has struck home. I wish briefly to discuss the Sustainable Communities Plan and then I hope to deal with some of the more detailed points that have been raised.
The Deputy Prime Minister's £22 billion Sustainable Communities Plan sets out our vision for reinvigorating existing communities in the north and the Midlands and to deliver new communities in the south—particularly the south-east. It is a national framework with regional and local flexibility. Sustainable communities to us mean cleaner, safer, greener and safer places in which economic progress and social justice go hand in hand. So, we are investing in education and healthcare. We are encouraging more jobs and safer streets. We are bringing new life to our town and city centres. We are offering more attractive, more welcoming public space and encouraging growth and greater confidence.
Our approach to low demand in one area is a good example—referred to as the housing market renewal pathfinders. Our market renewal programme aims to tackle the underlying causes of housing market failure, support local people through the process and create long-lasting communities. It is based on three key principles. First, as I have said repeatedly, it is not a housing problem. Secondly, the Government set the overall context, but local communities need to be responsible and accountable for decisions affecting their lives. Thirdly, we need to work together in new ways to create sustainable communities. That means it is not just about housing, but jobs and the wider social infrastructure. If the issue is treated just as a housing problem, it will fail.

1151
Local involvement is vital to the scheme's success and the pathfinders are working hard to encourage participation from local communities. I accept that there was a national framework, but all of the nine pathfinders are different and will find different solutions. I found in my visits to them that some are clearly much more difficult than others. It is agreed within the department that east Lancashire, covering five local authorities and nine geographical areas has its work cut out to be successful, but I am sure that it will be. Merseyside's "Living through change" programme is encouraging existing residents to stay and to share in the long-term vision. It is a large-scale, £500 million programme.
So far we have initiated the funding in six areas. Prospectuses are in my department for two areas, Birmingham/Sandwell and north Staffordshire. We expect the prospectus from Hull later in the year. However, Manchester/Salford, Newcastle/Gateshead, the three authorities in Merseyside working closer together than ever before, the authorities in South Yorkshire, Oldham/Rochdale and, as I have said, east Lancashire are working extremely well. It is very early days.
We also have a programme for the "core cities" that demonstrates the value of our approach. We published A Tale of Eight Cities in April, which showed that although there was a long way to go, our major cities outside London are achieving economic success, social justice and sustainable communities for three key reasons: better local leadership, which makes a fundamental difference; making different funding streams work together; and effective public/private partnerships. Those eight core cities—Birmingham, Newcastle, Bristol, Nottingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and Liverpool—are leading the way and we can learn the lessons to apply to the other key areas of the country.
Growth areas form a key element of the Sustainable Communities Plan. These are high demand areas that require different solutions, but, again, we provide the resources and supportive framework. All of the key, fundamental decisions in the growth areas will be made in the growth areas, not in Whitehall. They represent a comprehensive programme to create the real communities, schools, nurseries, hospitals and health centres, shops, pubs, homes and jobs. They are not just housing. I must stress that it is not a matter of just providing 200,000 extra houses; it is 200,000 on top of those already planned up to 2016, which was 930,000. We are dealing with a massive enterprise here—1.1 million houses.
I want to re-emphasise that the delivery unit in the town of Ashford is local authority-led. It is not imposed from the centre but is being carried out with our partners. The Thames Gateway will have a variety of delivery units because it is a 40-mile linear city but with green spaces and greenbelt areas put into it.
Milton Keynes/south Midlands was one area touched on by my noble friend Lady Billingham and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in relation to Corby. Corby is not an urban development
1152
corporation; it is an urban regeneration company. It will not be in an area with an urban development corporation. Corby will be part of the north Northamptonshire delivery unit—a local authority-led delivery unit—unlike west Northamptonshire, which will include Towcester, Northampton and Daventry and will, indeed, be an urban development corporation. There is a major distinction between the two.
With our partners in local government, we have tried to find the best delivery unit for each area. We have not come along from Whitehall and imposed schemes on them. The same will apply in the Peterborough, Cambridge, Stansted and London growth areas. We expect to deliver the 200,000 homes on top of those already planned. However, as I said, we cannot impose that from Whitehall; it must be carried out through local decision-making. The growth must be channelled into more sustainable communities, including the people who already live there. Of course, some younger people are being driven away because there are no affordable homes for them in the areas where they were brought up.
We are taking a structured approach to the planning and delivery of local services and we are building community capacity and cohesion. We know that we have to do that. We are targeting funding to make a difference. For example, recently £11 million was allocated for a major new road and bridge at Wellingborough and £5 million towards progressing the Bedford western bypass. Those schemes have the potential to unlock land, most of which, but not all, is brownfield land, with almost 7,000 dwellings being built. We are clear that we must make the best use of brownfield land to help to ease the pressures on the countryside. I take second place to no one on that. We want to avoid urban sprawl.
The proportion of new homes built on previously developed land rose from 58 per cent in 1998 to 64 per cent in 2002. The latest statistics show that we are on the right track in respect of the green belt. Since 1997, 25,000 hectares of green belt have been created, with a further 12,000 hectares due to be announced in local authority plans. That means that, under this Government, there are more than 35,000 extra hectares of greenbelt land across the country.
I want to put the statistics in proportion. Greenbelt land covers 14 per cent of England; national parks land covers 8 per cent; and areas of outstanding natural beauty cover 16 per cent. Urban land accounts for about 10 per cent of the total. Let us get this in proportion. Even if we deliver the entire growth area, that 10 per cent will become 11 per cent, leaving 89 per cent green land compared with the 90 per cent now. Therefore, the idea that we are despoiling the countryside and getting rid of green land is absolute nonsense. No one has said that during today's debate; it is said in the media outside. I want to put the figures into perspective.

1153
In rural areas, we recognise the importance of delivering sustainable communities, and we are taking action in that respect. For example, we have a programme to help to maintain Britain's rural post offices, and we do not need to go over that. Sometimes the post office is the engine of economic generation and it is very important. Since 2001, the Countryside Agency's Vital Villages programme has spent £20 million on maintaining essential village services and helping communities to prepare parish plans.
Rural regeneration is dependent on what happens at the most local levels. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with rural communities to help them to maintain local services and community facilities and to improve their capacity to engage in decision-making. The Housing Corporation also has a separate rural housing programme. Last year, it increased its target for small settlements, which are defined as villages or small towns with a population of less than 3,000. The programme involved building 1,300 dwellings a year. That number increased to 1,600 and has now reached 1,750 a year. That will be double the figure for the year 2004–01. In addition, there is a separate programme for larger rural areas and market towns, in which a further 5,000 dwellings organised by local authorities and the Housing Corporation were built last year.
We do not simply want to build communities; we want to build sustainable communities. The design must be good. We are already knocking down material that was built 20 years ago. We increased our support for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment as part of the Sustainable Communities Plan in 2003 to drive up design standards. With our extra funding, which was substantial compared with existing funding, CABE was able to launch a new unit, known as CABE Space, to act as a national champion for better-quality parks and public spaces. In the housing market in the Pathfinder areas of the north, and indeed in the growth areas, we are cajoling people to ensure that big developments are checked over by CABE so that we have good design and good functionality. Good design is not only about making places visually attractive; it is also crucial to how places function.
We also need to improve skills, offer training and give people a chance to make the most of their potential. We must ensure that everyone has a fair chance. That is why we commissioned a report from Sir John Egan on the skills that are needed to improve sustainable communities. We are going to take that report forward. It was published only a few days ago.
We can do that only through engaging local communities and groups at neighbourhood, delivery and strategic levels. That is a crucial area for the £2.5 billion programme for neighbourhood renewal. Effective local strategic partnerships can, indeed, bring together the key agencies. As my noble friend Lord Wooliner said, the private sector plays a vital role, as does the community and voluntary sector, in deciding how better services can be made to reach
1154
communities. In some areas, the private sector has disappeared, and we need to get it hack into those communities.
Community leadership is vital. The ethos of the New Deal for Communities programme, for example, is that communities should be at the heart, working with key agencies to transform neighbourhoods. Neighbourhood renewal is not only about additional funding; it is a question of ensuring that existing funds work more smartly and it is about "mainstreaming". I want to take up that point.
I realise that there is a question of schemes being community-led. The New Deal for Communities did not mean that the local community made all the decisions, irrespective of working with anyone else. The idea was to get the local community to work with all the other partners. I freely admit that there have been one or two problems relating to slowness, capacity and governance in about nine of the 39 New Deal for Communities programmes. We are correcting those as we go along. However, I think that it was a little unfair to quote from the recent National Audit Office report without indicating that that office also compared neighbourhood renewal in this country with five or six overseas countries and said that our programme was more radical and innovative and more likely to succeed than any of the other programmes that it had looked at in those overseas countries.
Therefore, while I accept that there has been a slow start to a 10-year programme, and we have had some difficulties which we have put right as we have gone along, the fact is that we are leading the way in trying to renew neighbourhoods in a sustainable way. Indeed, I attended one such area—not an NDC area—early this morning in the south Acton part of Ealing, where the creation was announced of a new arm's-length management organisation. I did not go to make that announcement; it was announced elsewhere while I was there. There, they are rebuilding a community from the 1960s. They have had to carry out some remodelling of the estate, regenerate jobs and remodel the community. All that is being done at local level with a partnership between the council and others. It was very interesting to see the scheme, and I promised that I would give it a plug here this afternoon.
The issue also comes down to what one of the local residents there said to me. She asked, "Will the spending make a difference to our lives? We want to be part of this. We want to see a difference". That is what it is all about. Therefore, it is important to focus on key geographical areas and to concentrate on schemes to tackle specific problems.
Reference was made to the coalfields, which provide a good example. This Government inherited an appalling situation. In the decade to 1991, 60,000 men of working age left the coalfields. The death rate was 12 per cent higher and overall crime rates were 20 per cent higher than the national average. Overall, across 10 years, our £386 million national coalfield programme will deliver 42,000 jobs, 4,000 hectares of re-used land, 2 million square metres of commercial floor space, 8,000 quality new homes and £ I billion of private sector investment in the coalfields.

1155
We have already given the Coalfields Regeneration Trust about £100 million so that people can access the skills, jobs and training that they need to earn a decent living. We have just announced that the trust will receive an additional £15 million for the year to March 2006. Massive changes are taking place in these coalfield communities. That takes time; nevertheless, so far, more than 8,000 community groups have been supported, 90,000 people are receiving education and training and 14,000 have received qualifications as a result of the programme. At the moment I do not have the figure for the amount of land that has been reclaimed. I had it earlier, but it is now buried in the index. However, a substantial amount of land has been reclaimed. As that land is brought to the market and the value returns, it is recycled into the coal field communities programme. That is a very targeted operation indeed and one that was sadly needed in view of our inheritance.
We know that policies for local communities need to be within a regional policy. There is no doubt about that. The United Kingdom has had one of the most centralised systems of government. I know some still claim that it is very centralised, but with the new legislation of responsible communities, freedoms and flexibilities and freedom to borrow, there is now much more freedom for local government than there has been in the recent past.
We have one of the most centralised systems of government in the western world, with decisions taken too remotely from the places that they affect, but we are changing that. Previous approaches to regional policy did not do enough to close the gap between areas of high and low unemployment. The new generation of measures seeks to strengthen indigenous sources of growth, local enterprise, innovation, infrastructure skills and the labour market and to do so by using local groups, local communities, the private and public sectors, different kinds of delivery vehicles, ensuring that red tape is at the absolutely minimum, and ensuring that we bring in as much private commercial capital as possible.
Most of the investment in all the areas that I have discussed will come from the private sector, but only because the public sector is willing to have a long-term plan for sustainable communities to ensure that we put in the infrastructure. Not only must the roads and the railways be there, but we must also ensure that the schools and the medical centres are built at the same time as the houses so that people do not have to wait years for them.
Since 1997 the Government have given local authorities and their regions a greater chance to improve their performance and to develop capability, capacity and competence. Good progress is being made. Yesterday, during Question Time, I referred to the announcement that 6,000 children no longer live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I accept that that was a commitment before the communities plan was published, but it was part and parcel of the operation that we were trying to undertake.
Earlier today my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced the approval of 58 new schemes that could release up to £3 billion more investment
1156
to bring another 170,000 homes up to a decent standard and reduce the number of non-decent social homes. He also announced a new initiative to enable proposed stock transfers with a funding gap to go ahead. That demonstrates real progress towards our aim of making all social housing decent by 2010. We are supporting local communities through a national framework for action, delivering money and support where it is most needed, empowering local people to deliver progress according to their own priorities.
I have reached the time limit on my speech, mainly because of the couple of minutes I wasted at the beginning in attacking the Conservative Party. I have covered many points without referring specifically to the noble Lords who raised them. However, on four or five matters I shall write to noble Lords. I shall answer, in a compendium letter, the key issues that were raised that I have not been able to cover. That way I shall not have to write half a dozen different letters, but I shall put everything in one letter.
I have not touched on the crucial role of the regional development agencies, although I have touched on regional policy. Those agencies have a fundamental role in this matter and we shall seek to ensure that that is strengthened. Some issues went outside the brief. The estate that I visited this morning has problems with drug misuse and, therefore, we need to remodel it in the interests of those who live there which, first, means eradicating the dealers from the estate. There are many issues to be dealt with.
I have touched on some aspects of the rural policy and I shall answer the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on MISC 22. MISC 22 is a Cabinet sub-committee chaired by the Prime Minister. Its original brief was to look at the Thames Gateway. To start with that was its sole brief. The Gateway was designated by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, 15 years ago. We do not claim credit for that but we need to get it moving. It is designed to look at how the public get back the money from the vast increase in land values that will take place to build the infrastructure. We are talking about river crossings, so the noughts go on the end of all the estimates. Since then the brief has been widened and now covers the other three growth areas.
The sub-committee meets under the leadership of the Prime Minister and he will be expecting and receiving a verbal, across-the-table report from myself and other Ministers before the month is out. It meets from time to time, but it is key because a Civil Service group mirrors it. So it has not died a death. It is a key part of us ensuring that Whitehall decisions are all joined up because we have to answer to the boss on that.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, it remains for me to thank my noble friend the Minister for his typically robust reply and all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I thank the noble mob on this side of the House—it is a shame and a pity that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, did not have the support of her mob. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Political Parties
6.5 p.m.
Viscount Chandosrose to call attention to the role which political parties play in public life; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships' House is distinguished by the presence of, and the great contributions by, its Cross-Bench Members. It is hard to find a parliament in the world where there is any comparable, substantial element of independent membership. Switzerland is perhaps the closest. Even if we have not as yet reached a consensus about the next stage of reform of this House, there is widespread conviction that its future composition should include the independent component that exists today.
For that reason I hope that the debate that I have the privilege to introduce today will have an unusual resonance: an exploration of the role of political parties in public life from a Chamber with a unique balance between party political and independent Members and, even beyond that, a justified tradition of independence on all Benches.
I am delighted to see on the list of speakers today members of, I think, five political parties, including not only those well represented in this House and another place, but also others such as the Green Party, in the unmistakable form of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, whose parliamentary representation is more limited, a subject about which I suspect he, and I am sure other speakers, will have more to say.
Among the small collection of press cuttings that I have relating to my political and parliamentary life, there is only one that my wife thought worthy of pinning to the kitchen board. In it, the then political editor of' the Daily Express, before his move, no doubt to avoid being asked to join in the Basil Fawlty-like antics of that paper's management, to his current position at the Spectator, nominated me, as a result of my support for the Government's proposals for the first stage of the reform of this House, as "Crawler of the Week".
I am conscious that I may be encouraging a further award. as I now owe my position in your Lordships' House to my nomination by a political party as opposed to the accident of birth. So, to my declaration that political parties are the lifeblood, the very essence of parliamentary democracy, I am quite prepared to find a response, to echo Christine Keeler, of "Well, he would, wouldn't he?". I will assert, nonetheless, that political parties have enriched public life over many centuries and continue to do so; and, most importantly, they should play a key role in the re-engagement of public interest in politics and trust in the political process. Of course, it is always difficult to separate clearly the role of the individual and the contribution of a party to which he or she belongs. However, if we look at the great reforms and political events of the past 200 years, parties have been at the centre of them: from the abolition of slavery to the introduction of the minimum wage and the foundation of the National Health Service to the right to buy council houses.
1158
The support for Winston Churchill in 1940 by the Labour Party (notwithstanding the story of miscommunication over the acceptability of Halifax) demonstrates the critical role of a constructive opposition. The very issues that have stretched parties to their limits or beyond—Corn Law reform, Ireland, Europe and even Iraq—represent a testament to the vibrancy of the political process and the parties' place in that.
Even when the running has been made by single issue groups—as, most notably perhaps, in the case of women's suffrage—I would argue that it has been the ultimate interaction with one or more of the political parties that has ultimately led to successful change.
Professor Dennis Kavanagh has written that political parties reconcile conflicting interests, act as vehicles of participation, assist in the recruitment of people for public office, strengthen democratic control, strengthen choice—through the provision of packages of ideas and policies—strengthen communication between government and society, and assist in the enforcement of accountability.
We recognise in other countries the essential desirability of a multi-party system for the creation of an effective parliamentary democracy and the essential incorporation of human rights in those societies. Formal or de facto one-party states are little better than overt dictatorships, and arguably can be worse as they cover the vices of autocracy with a deceptive veneer of democratic legitimacy.
As America emerged at the end of the 18th century from the shadow of empire and sought to establish a society of its own design, there were strong voices for doing so without the incorporation of political parties—a demonstration perhaps that disillusion with political parties is not an entirely new thing. But, try as they might, they could not devise a parliamentary democracy that did not ultimately depend on the central role of political parties.
For all of this, however, there is no shortage of evidence that public interest in politics and political parties has been declining—falling party memberships; sharply lower turnout at the last general election; opinion polls that show young people are more likely to join a single issue organisation than a political party; and the combined membership of the two largest environmental groups exceeding that of either of the two largest political parties. Why is that and what can be done about it?
My noble and learned friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, in a speech on democratic engagement last week analysed both the underlying trends and their possible causes. I agree with him that not all the reasons are necessarily ominous. In a changing society with improving economic trends and government initiatives benefiting many—but not all—people, it is reasonable to expect that many people want a lower level of engagement with politics and political parties, placing greater priority and value on family and friends, work and leisure interests.
However, on several counts, that analysis offers no grounds for complacency. Democratic disengagement is most marked within the lowest income groups, so economic contentment at least cannot be an overwhelming factor; and even among those who may feel some degree of

1159
contentment, we should think carefully before allowing a declining level of political interest and participation to become embedded.
I would not want to leave the impression that my noble and learned friend viewed these trends with any more complacency than I do. My noble friend the Minister, in winding up, may well address some of the same issues and ideas that are humming around their department.
I should like to use the remainder of my introduction to touch briefly on five issues—trust, patronage, the parties' challenge to renew their appeal in a changing society, the linkage between political parties and their representation at every level of democracy, and party funding.
My noble and learned friend rather disarmingly said in his speech last week:
"The evidence seems to show that trust in politicians to put the national interest first over party interest was never high, is not high now and has fallen".
If we read the great satirists and writers over the ages and look at the contemporary cartoonists, we find plenty of support for the low starting point to which my noble friend refers—no "Golden Age" in that context.
From this low starting point, therefore, I wonder whether trust has really fallen? And, if so, has it been by any more than that applying to many other institutions in a society where there is openly less deference towards established institutions than in the past? There is no doubt that political parties in and out of government should strive ceaselessly to improve the way they can, on the one hand, provide leadership, while on the other, still leave the electorate with reasonable, realistic expectations. A formidably difficult challenge, which I suspect armchair pundits, whether in the Lobby, the pub or fashionable dinner parties inevitably underestimate. So I do not question this perceived decline in trust in order to advocate a reduction in these efforts. Rather, I offer it as another case where we should be careful not to allow a desirable sensitivity to public opinion to create an exaggerated sense of inadequacy—in psychobabble terms, a sense of collective low self-esteem. Not an affliction, I suppose, that is conventionally associated with politicians.
I was struck when I read a short and stimulating book written a few years ago by the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, entitled The Purpose of Politics. In 176 pages, I do not believe that he referred once to political parties or their role, even in a chapter headed "Politics as a Constructive Art". In contrast, the great former leader of his party, Disraeli, said:
"I believe that without party, Parliamentary Government is impossible."
And, possibly less reliably, he also had attributed to him the cry:
"Damn your principles! Stick to your Party!"
1160
I do not cite this comparison to make a party-political point—there may still be time for that later—but to illustrate the mood of the age, where I sense that advocacy of party in politics has become the love that dare not speak its name.
Whether trust is low and declining, therefore, or just low, we must do everything we can to increase it. Over the last 10 years, the transparency of government and of politics has, I believe, been transformed. Started under the last Conservative government, if not under duress, but perhaps under crisis—and significantly enhanced since 1997 by this Government—this new openness is unequivocally to be welcomed. But with it has come a new challenge; to operate in government in political and public life, while being subject to an intensity of constant scrutiny that is far greater than that applying to practically any other walk of life. Premiership football, perhaps, being the most glaring exception.
I would not have it any other way. But I think that, if this is not a naively optimistic sentiment, all participants in public life and, critically, the media in their coverage should perhaps respond to this enhanced openness with a corresponding maturity in the way they treat information.
Government have exercised great patronage throughout history and, I believe, generally honestly and well. It is clearly right that party affiliation should not give any advantage to candidates for non-political office. Equally there is a risk that if party affiliation of any colour becomes seen—in a McCarthyite way—as an absolute disadvantage for anyone seeking a role in public life outside the strict parliamentary arena, then either or both public interest and the political system will be diminished.
Political parties need to recognise the changed society in which they now operate and, without compromising their fundamental raison d' être, find new ways of engaging with their actual and prospective supporters. If we look over to the United States at the presidential campaign—and the Democratic primary leading up to it—it is clear that, even if Howard Dean proved spectacularly unsuccessful in his quest for the nomination, he has found ways of reaching parts of America that others could not reach. Not primarily, I believe, because of his success in appealing to the anti-war vote specifically, but much more through his harnessing of a powerful network—both metaphorically and, through the Internet, literally—of latent activists and supporters.
Above all, as my noble and learned friend argued last week, political parties will succeed in re-engaging the interests and support of different parts of society by putting forward programmes and policies that strongly connect with those people, offering in particular hope and ambition for the disadvantaged. If we believe that political parties are essential to parliamentary democracy then we must inexorably recognise that political parties need fair representation in Parliament and in all levels of elected bodies.

1161
The introduction of proportional representation for the European elections, mayoral elections and those to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales represent a huge step forward, but like, I am sure, other speakers, at least on the Liberal Democrat Benches, we must recognise that there is unfinished business. A more proportional voting system for Westminster elections is a necessary condition for achieving greater public democratic engagement. So, too, is reform of party funding. I very much look forward to the report on the subject later this summer by the Electoral Commission, and strongly hope that it will recommend some form of match funding for parties, combined with a cap on individual contributions.
I cannot end my remarks in praise of political parties without one unabashed statement of support for my party. I am sure that other noble Lords may feel the same about theirs. When I look back over the past seven years I feel real pride in the achievements of this Government: great steps towards the elimination of child poverty; the establishment of economic stability combined with a dynamic environment for innovation and growth; widespread constitutional and social reform; and vital initial moves to reform the provision of public services. I believe that that pride is widely shared by members and supporters of my party. That pride lies at the heart of the party's strength and, through that, the strength of our democracy. I beg to move for Papers.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, it is my privilege and pleasure to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for introducing an extremely important and interesting subject. This is a classic Wednesday debate. I hope that I will not embarrass him when I say that I agree with most of what he had to say. He quoted Disraeli's definition of a political party; I shall go back a little further, to Edmund Burke, in the 18th century. He defined a political party as,
"a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed".
If one substitutes "men and women", that definition is as relevant today as it was when it was first given. Looking back, when a political party and its leaders have adopted that principle, it has usually been successful. When they have departed from those principles, they have usually paid a heavy price. Two obvious examples in the past century were Peel, over the reform of the Corn Laws, and Gladstone, over Irish Home Rule.
Like the noble Viscount, I should like to refer to some of the worrying features in political life today. As he said, people, particularly the young, are not joining political parties in the numbers that they used to. I remember the good old days when the Young Conservatives served as a great marriage bureau. I am sure that the same applied to other political parties, and no doubt the Cross Benches had a similar operation. It seems today that people are more
1162
attracted to one-issue groups, which, although they fulfil a valuable function, do not see politics in the round.
The other worrying feature, to which the noble Viscount also referred, is the poor turnout of voters. That has been a feature in local and European elections for some time, but it is now also appearing in general elections. As the noble Viscount reminded us, our forefathers fought long and hard to get universal suffrage in this country, but it no longer seems to be regarded as the prize of citizenship that it once was. That must be disturbing to anyone—including, I am sure, all noble Lords—who believes in responsible and representative government.
What is the reason for that apparent decline? There is a whole series of reasons. The main one is people's rising expectations. Twenty years ago we did not dream of the expectations for life and leisure that we have today. We are egged on by advertisers and the media to expect the moon. No wonder, in those circumstances, that governments of all colours do not always succeed in meeting people's expectations. Disappointment and apathy set in, and it is easy for people to say, "Why bother? They do not care about me." What is to be done? First, we are trying out new methods of voting, in addition to, or in place of, the traditional ballot box in the polling station on a Thursday. If those methods can be achieved without fraud or confusion, they are wholly desirable. However, they do not go to the heart of the problem.
I disagree with the noble Viscount on the financing of political parties. The Short and Cranborne money to enable parties in opposition to fulfil their parliamentary functions is valuable. It gives them broadly the equivalent of the Civil Service available to the government of the day. But I am very doubtful about extending that still further to the activities of political parties in the country. That could easily he resented and therefore counterproductive.
The referendum is now part of our constitutional arrangements, and the procedure is covered by law. I am bound to say that I am not enthusiastic, for three reasons. First, it tends to weaken the authority of Parliament and of parliamentarians using their judgment rather than following public opinion. Secondly, it is difficult to draft a question that will be readily understood by those asked to vote. Perhaps most important of all is the tendency of people to vote for or against the government of the day rather than on the issue before them. However, the referendum is here to stay, and if people feel more involved as a consequence of a referendum, that is all for the good. We should certainly have a referendum on such vital matters as the European constitution. It is not a tidying-up matter; it is one of major importance. I am very glad that the Government have conceded that the referendum will take place.
Whatever the solutions to the problems, we in Parliament and the political parties have a big responsibility. To some extent, we have failed to strike a chord in the hearts and minds of the British people. Too many people feel out of touch, and too many feel

1163
that we do not understand properly their hopes, ambitions, worries and fears. Too many people also, particularly in recent times, feel that governments say one thing and do another. Unless we can find ways to break down these barriers, the consequences for stability and good government in our country will be serious. If we succeed, as I am confident we will, we will add a new, splendid chapter to the political genius of the British people.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I too thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for initiating this debate today, calling attention to the role played by political parties in public life. It is an important, but neglected, issue. I thank him for his balanced contribution. I am particularly pleased at his reference to proportional representation, and I forgive him his one-minute party political broadcast.
There have been attempts to define a political party. The major element of a political party is its generalist nature, rather than being a single-issue pressure group. I have written down, "a loose grouping of men and women, nationally, regionally and locally based, with similar values and ethos, leading to principles, and then that is followed by policies". It is interesting that it is national, regional and local. Indeed, the main political parties have been regionally based and had regional organisations long before thoughts of devolution.
I perhaps ought to declare an interest, as a Liberal Democrat and a former Liberal, having had involvement politically at national. regional and local level. I am also a director of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd, and a trustee of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, chairing its democracy committee. Those two organisations make grants in the general area of democracy.
To be effective, political parties need members. The numbers of those members have been going down hill fast for a long time. There is almost a secret at the level of decline. People do not want to own up that their party does not have quite as many members as they would like people to think it had. Members are needed; they are needed to be candidates. We are a few days away from a nomination day, when in metropolitan areas, because of the all-out nature of elections, political parties that want to be vibrant must fight all the seats, with the maximum number of candidates. That means that there is a bit of scratching in terms of those who are persuaded that perhaps it would be a wonderful thing if their name were to be on the ballot paper.
Activists are also needed. In some work done by the Joseph Rowntree trusts, on local government elections in Calderdale, Burnley and Oldham, it is interesting that the people are saying that they want to see people on doorsteps, and they want to be able to speak to representatives of those political parties. There is a decline in the numbers who are prepared to do that work and be the foot soldiers. There is a disinclination to join political parties. There is a perception that nice people do not do it.
1164
Yet, these political parties do change. If you look at the major parties, the Conservative Party was a one-nation party, and it changed itself into a rather different sort of party; the Labour Party was the old Labour Party, and has become new Labour; the Liberal Party and the SDP merged to become the Liberal Democrats. We have seen a resurgence in the national parties in Scotland and Wales. We have seen new entrants, and they—the Greens, the UKIP, the BNP—have a tendency to be on certain issues only. Particularly with the latter, it is worth making the point that if gaps are made, someone will fill them.
It is interesting that people compare the numbers involved in political parties with the numbers who join the RSPB and the National Trust. I do not know how active members are in those organisations, or whether they like the picture books that may come along. We need a climate where it is thought that membership of a political party is a high calling. It is a great shame, although I see an array of Bishops in front of me, that we do not have a Bishop or a Cross-Bencher taking part in this debate. Party politics is too important to leave to the politicos. Unless we are moving to a point where there is a post-political party politics en route, political parties are essential in terms of elected office, policy, campaigning, and they need ideas, people and money.
In the times that we are living in, it seems that there is a choice of where the money comes from. It would be interesting to put the question to the British people of whether they want their politics funded by on the one hand, rich people, or on the other hand, the state. Which answer would they come up with? In my book, they would say "neither". They would say, -Oh no, we would sooner it be ordinary folk, ordinary volunteers". Of course, they are not there in numbers and the resources that they are able to bring in voluntary subscriptions are not sufficient to the needs of a political party. We ought to be moving to a time when membership is linked to money, and there is a system of funding whereby there could be a tax rebate or a grant, provided that a subscription is paid in the first place to that political party. The incentive of getting more money and more members may well be a route to more activists and more people. Such a scheme would work only if there was a local return in the case of those moneys; an incentive to local people, and not a sense that any subscriptions, rebate or tax deduction would go to a headquarters in London.
Perhaps I have spent far too long on the present position, but I did so because it is serious. Political parties are in a state of serious decline. The question here is the role that they play in public life. I often have carried a receipt book about for my political party and signed up people as members from time to time. It should not be a liability to be a member. It has not been unusual for me to suggest that someone had the right attitude and perhaps ought to be a member of the political party of my choice, and for them to say, "Well, I must be very careful, I could not really commit myself".

1165
Political parties are important in the role of our proceedings. We presently have state funding, in terms of that policy money. We have an involvement in terms of the list systems for elections, which, if the numbers in the parties are so reduced, means that very important decisions are in the hands of a tiny group of people. Political parties are too important to be seen only as a place for the deviant or the anorak.
6.39 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Chandos for initiating the debate. It provides the opportunity to discuss where political parties fit in society today, on which I shall concentrate. As my noble friend said, political parties are essential institutions in our democracy, which provide the crucial link between voter preference and the forming of government at all levels; that is, local, national and European.
I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. We should be building our political parties and not falling for the slogan that we hear too often; namely, that the party is over. There is no doubt that membership of political parties is falling. Only 3.5 per cent of British voters are members of any political party. We used to talk about "mass parties". That has always been a myth. There has never been any such thing as a mass party. There has always been only a minority of the electorate who has joined political parties.
I am not so worried about membership, although, as an ex-party apparatchik, of course I want membership to increase. But I am much more concerned about the disenchantment of the electorate and examining why that so; for example, whether it is because of disinterest, complacency or detachment from politics generally. Yesterday, the Electoral Commission published a new report, entitled, Do you do politics?. It concludes that the vast majority of people see politics as something that someone else does. We need to get over that phenomenon in order to build our political parties.
As I said, members are still needed. We are still considered by the majority of people as a group of very strange people who are members of political parties, go to party meetings, attend conferences, work with the local or national party machine and spend time knocking on doors. But our democracy owes a great debt to these grass-root activists. Without them, politics and decision making would be dependent on the temporary whims of populism. Without parties, voters would be confronted with a bewildering array of independents. Parties add meaning and clarity, through manifestos and campaign messages. We hope that that enables voters to make rational choices when they put their crosses on the ballot papers.
If there is a democratic malaise, I think that the media, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, referred, has a lot to answer for. I shall give just one example: it is absolutely appalling that there is a discussion of a candidate being chosen for public office by a pop-idol style political programme. That
1166
makes a farce of our political system. Politics is about people working together through political parties to influence the communities in which they live, and not passively selecting a media-manufactured false idol.
Political parties are the gatekeepers to political office. They provide the mechanisms for public representatives to receive public endorsement and work within a laid-down set of rules, which is very important. Parties today are more than just election machines that mobilise electoral support. They are recruitment agencies for public representatives, the training ground for local councillors and MPs and, ultimately, for our party leaders and Prime Minister, which we sometimes forget.
Shortly, we shall discuss the report of the Electoral Commission, entitled, Gender and Political Participation, and the crucial role that political parties play in promoting more women as public representatives. It is a clear illustration of why we need political parties.
As I said before, it is disturbing how little voters know about political parties. There seems to exist deep-seated misconceptions, ignorance about politics generally and—I believe absolutely—real distrust. That level of distrust has grown over the years and should not be taken with any complacency.
Research by Eurobarometer identified that only 15 per cent of the population trusted political parties. In a recent survey, the Institute for Citizenship showed that 64 per cent of those surveyed knew hardly anything about how Parliament or their local councils work. It is no wonder that people are not really interested. It is not wholly surprising when, until recently, there has been two decades without citizenship being taught adequately in schools.
The real question for many people is: why have any interest or participate in a political party when it appears that decision making in many areas has moved away from government to non-elected bodies, such as quangos, to regulators or to international institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank? We no longer live in a neat environment within known boundaries.
Many key decisions affecting people's lives are now beyond the reach of domestic politics. As globalisation and technological change are mainly developing outside the conventional political framework, people are finding alternative avenues of engagement and new ways of feeling connected. New technology is the biggest driver of political change. The Internet allows different forms of interaction based on common interest and lifestyles. We are fast becoming a society of individuals who interact with each other through a nexus of networks. Influence is now increasingly shared among a variety of formal and informal networks, pressure groups and charitable organisations.
It is a myth that the British people are apathetic, which always relates to whether they vote. But British people are not apathetic. All the evidence belies the idea that the public have somehow become disengaged from civil life. Rather, the British are a society of joiners. The problem is that their interest in political issues is not translated into interest in political parties.

1167
Other noble Lords have referred to the single-interest groups. There are now more than 180,000 registered charities in the UK, of which many have very large memberships and whose influence is felt and recognised by the Government. Organisations have been brought into policy making and implementation at the highest levels of government. That is challenging the role of parties as the main agents of political participation.
There is a plethora of area-based initiatives and schemes; for example, people involved in the New Deal and Sure Start programmes and local civil forums. Local people are providing civic leadership and accountability with a sense of ownership of the outcome and that their contribution has made a difference. But parties are distinguished from those alliances by their desire not just to influence those in government but to become—or become part of—government themselves.
Nevertheless, political parties have to be involved in the changes in society and must look at the way in which they operate. If parties are to impress voters and to sustain their reputation as agents of change, there is a clear need to cultivate new themes and update traditional thinking. That may mean a new style of political party that turns outwards to local campaigns and concerns, and which needs to be seen to be very engaged in the local community. I agree that organisations need to be properly funded and professionally run.
There is an urgent need to rebuild the relevance of politics as a concept and as an activity worth taking part in. We should not forget that the lesson of the 20th century has been the birth and growth of political parties in eastern Europe, South Africa and the old Soviet Union, providing them, for the first time, with democratic and representative governance.
Political parties are central to democracy. In the main, they are the only way that public opinion can be effectively articulated and governments elected. As long as there is representative governance, there will be political parties that are made up of people with joint values coming together to bring about social change. That is the essence of our political democracy.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am a party man—all sorts of parties, but particularly political ones—from the moment when my father held me up on the balcony of the Bull's Head in the market square in Aylesbury in 1935 and, secure in his 20,000 majority, introduced me to the crowd as its future Conservative Member of Parliament; through the moment when I made a speech as a cocky late arrival at Gordonstoun in 1942 announcing that Labour would sweep into power after the war and that the Conservatives would get back at the following election—not bad forecasting—and that I would be in that House; through to the day when Frank Byers brought me into the languishing Liberal party—only five MPs at that particular moment—during my first term at Oxford;
1168
and down to the day when, after 50 years in the Liberal Party, I finally realised that one could not be Green, which I always knew that I was, and believe in free trade. And I joined the Green Party. I have never had occasion to doubt the party system during that whole period. That is why I welcome the debate and thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for introducing it.
When I was running the Liberal Party back in the early 1960s, the local government of this country quite largely rejected the involvement of political parties, and members of the Conservative Party, in particular, expected to run large parts of the country while serving as "independent" councillors. It was my welcome duty to help the Liberal Party to challenge that situation and, together with our own red guard headed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—who I am sorry is not taking part in the debate—to introduce community politics, which was much derided because of its emphasis on cracked pavements.
But cracked pavements are what the householder cares about. For this reason it is important that we bring down the units of representation as low as possible. I believe I was right to say the other day, in our debate on London governance, that we should go back to the old boroughs that existed before the big ones were introduced.
The Green Party is a serious party and it is to be taken seriously. It has claims to be the fastest growing political party in the country—certainly, none of the major ones seem to be growing—and, wherever there is a reasonable system of voting, its candidates get elected. It has two Members from England in the European Parliament—both outstanding—where they are members of an important and influential bloc; on the Greater London Assembly it has a group of three members; and in the Scottish Parliament it has eight. It is not a party to be dismissed out of hand.
Why did the last set of nominations to your Lordships' House not contain a Green? It is monstrous. My grandfather, Lord Gainford, died in your Lordships' House, sitting on the Privy Council Bench. One of these days you will find that I, too, have passed away in this little green eyrie of mine up here because the Prime Minister has not seen fit to do his clear duty, which is to send me a colleague.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Patten: My Lords, for once, I am left slightly speechless by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, but I enjoyed his speech. As a party man through and through, I am very glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, has given the House the chance to discuss this issue. Indeed, if at a post-mortem I was cut across, you would find "Conservative, Conservative, Conservative" written there like the inside of a stick of Brighton or Blackpool rock, venues where I have spent so many party conferences—those endearing crosses between a seminar and a bacchanalia.
I wish to refer to three issues today: the party system, my party and the role of the non-party when it manages to get a toehold in elective politics or finds itself represented on the Cross Benches of your Lordships' House.

1169
First, our party system is deeply embedded in our way of doing things, with two of the big national parties able to trace their roots back to the 18th century. One party, Labour—old Labour or new Labour; I could not quite gather which phrase found favour with the noble Viscount can trace its roots into the late 19th century. Conservative, Labour and Liberal are part of the warp and weft of our national lives. They have been joined more latterly by the Greens, and we must not ignore the parties of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I wish only that I was able to campaign among the steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone as a Conservative and Unionist, as we used to be able to do.
We should not feel self-satisfied as political party members but between us, thanks to the common sense of the British people over recent centuries, we have managed, more or less, to eschew revolutionary politics, favoured stability and been fairly tolerant as a nation. Political parties are part of our national political settlement; they help us to codify, restrain and domesticate the national tensions that otherwise might erupt.
That is not to say that political parties are spotless vessels. Party politics is a form of gang warfare: it is highly organised both between the gangs and within them. No party leader ever manages to rise to power, let alone stay in power, without the help of his or her own gang of political supporters. Even as someone who hung up his political knuckle-duster from active service some years ago, I have a fairly precise feel for the social structure of my own party and a deep fascination, as an observant outsider, for the shifting gang boundaries within the Labour Party, with its new clan and factional groupings emerging under the new Labour or old Labour would-be robber barons.
I am not absolutely certain in which gang to place the Minister who is to reply to the debate; I am not quite sure what secret sign he gives or whether he has some clan marking about his person. Perhaps we will find out over the years. However, I get a growing sense that, rather like the last of the Mohicans, our Prime Minister, Mr Blair, is becoming more and more the last of the Blairites—save for some cheerful figures such as the noble and learned Lord the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who is endlessly and busily involved in forming a protective ring of wagons. My only message to the noble and learned Lord's right honourable friend is that he might spend so much time getting the wagons in a protective circle that, once they are arranged, he will find out that there is no one left in the middle.
It will be very hard for a genuinely national new party to find much space in our crowded party field, any more than a new daily newspaper would get much of a look-in should it be launched. I understand exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, said about not so many people joining now. I hear that party membership figures go up and down: I am told by the press that the Labour Party's figures are going down. I have no idea whether that is true. Trusting party figures is like trusting the circulation figures of national newspapers; anyone who travels by train and sees the great megalithic piles
1170
of free newspapers which are given out knows how unreliable are the circulation figures of our national newspapers.
I am certainly told—this is interesting because I know the place a little, as does my noble friend Lord Windlesham, who is sitting on the Privy Council Bench—that this year in Oxford there are suddenly more members of the University Conservative Association than there have been for a quarter of a century, during the run-up to the 1979 general election. I have no idea what this means or how accurate it is, but it is interesting to see that some people still do wish to join. But most of the British electorate are not great joiners of political parties, even though, come a general election, those who get to vote cleave to someone to vote for.
This brings me to my second point in regard to my own party, the Conservatives. Arguably the oldest party in the known world—and probably intergalactically—we Conservatives know who we are. We do not need to change our name à la new Labour, a term that I predict will be dropped as quickly as you can say "Keir Hardie" under the leadership of a different Labour leader. Let me pick a name completely out of the hat; Mr Gordon Brown, for example. I do not think you will find much new Labour should he be in No. 10.
I think we should call ourselves "Conservatives", not "Tories". I have noticed increasingly in the media the use of the word "Tory" as a form of abuse. I have once or twice in the past mentioned to your Lordships that I feel that the BBC, in particular, has a slant. I do not blame it for having a slant; it is perfectly understandable in a group of men and women who have taken their views on life. I have a number of friends in the BBC—I would not dream of mentioning them for fear of ruining their career—to whom I talk. I see the BBC as being, broadly speaking, a tiny hit inside the liberal left—a bit pro-Palestinian and a bit pro-Europe—but certainly not pro-Conservative. One notices that by the way in which the BBC increasingly uses the word "Tory" in its comments. When was the last time any of your Lordships heard the BBC refer to the Labour Party, new Labour or old Labour, as the "Socialists"—and yet the Labour Party in this country belongs to a number of international socialist organisations? I think, on the grounds of balance, that every time the BBC uses the word "Tory" it should balance it with a reference to the Labour Party as "Socialists". That would be nearer the point. I will not, however, press this for fear of causing the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, to erupt on to his feet saying that the Liberals should be referred to as Whigs. I would not want to go that far.
Thirdly and lastly, I would like to say how important I think that fast-vanishing group of people, the independents, is in this country. I am not a great man for quotas, but I wish that in some ways we could find mechanisms for encouraging more people to stand as independents in local government. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who said that in the old days, many people stood as independents, particularly in rural areas, and they were actually Tories. We have a number of people who sit primly on the Cross Benches, that bastion of the

1171
vice-chancellorian and upper mandarinate classes, whom we know are strong supporters of the Labour Party, because they do a spot of "blue skies thinking" on its behalf.
It is extremely important that we look to the health of the independents in this place and ensure that we have routes to membership of the Cross Benches that would allow such great national treasures as our Deputy Prime Minister, for example, to emerge on to them. I suspect that under our new way of doing things, alas and alack, it will be the mandarinate of the most heightened sort and the vice-chancellorian classes whom we will see decorating those Benches.
I warmly welcome the opportunity to have this debate, and thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, very much for promoting it.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one question? He made a most enjoyable and robust speech, but are we to deduce from this distinction between Tories and Conservatives that the latter are significantly to the left of the former?
Lord Patten: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord caught me just before I sat down. I was not suggesting that anyone whom the BBC or any other person in the media chooses to give the name Tory to is anything other than a Conservative. It is just that I believe that the Conservative Party has no reason to change its name. Why should we be linked with a lot of Irish robber barons from an island off the north-west coast of Northern Ireland? I speak as a left-footed Conservative and Unionist on this. I do not wish to be linked with these people. I am a Conservative through and through, as is my noble friend Lady Seccombe. I just prefer to be called Conservative rather than Tory or anything else.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gould mentioned the Internet. In preparing for this debate, I thought I would enter the words "political parties" into an Internet search engine. As noble Lords know, the more popular the website, the higher it comes on the search engine list. Well, I was surprised to see that the first 268 entries were about political parties as social gatherings—celebrations with a political theme. The reference to parties of people united in a cause, as defined by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, came after. I mention this because I think it says something about the status of political parties in public life today. So it is timely that we should debate this, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Chandos on moving this Motion.
Those of us who came late to political life were probably as surprised as I was to find that people in politics were not as they are portrayed. People outside politics are rather cynical about politicians because they are often seen or portrayed to be on the make, power-hungry and corrupt. Such cynicism is transferred to political parties. This is not only dangerous, because only extremists gain from these
1172
attitudes, but also untrue. Most of the politicians whom I have met want to win power in order to serve—to serve the public and the public interest rather than to enjoy personal power and its trappings. Very few people rise to that level.
It is unfortunate that political parties do not radiate this attitude of serving the public, not only because it is nearer the truth but also because it would deflect some of the cynicism and disenchantment about which many noble Lords have spoken.
This is not the first time that I have been faced with this kind of problem. In the 1970s, my work was building up a business. Noble Lords will, I am sure, remember that at that time, people were equally cynical and disenchanted about businessmen—greed was good, creative accountancy was all the rage and for the sake of easy money, any businessman could be corrupted. But, as with politics and political parties today, the opposite was largely true. Of course there were a few corrupt businessmen, but most of us were trying to build up businesses which would serve society, our families and the economy. Somehow we had to express this in terms that meant something to ordinary people. So we invented—or, rather reinvented—corporate social responsibility. We formalised the things that most of us who ran a good business and had a social conscience did anyway. As a result, the position today is that banks, investors, financial institutions and the public consider a company's social attitudes alongside all the other judgments they make about it—its products, financial status, and so on. It seems to me that in order to play their full role, serve public life and defeat cynicism, political parties have to do something similar. There is a model here, because all the ingredients are there.
First, let us take the people who are involved in politics and political parties. There is no lack of social responsibility there. I am amazed at the huge amount of voluntary work that these people do. They raise money for charity; they organise and help in the welfare of disabled and unfortunate people; they do voluntary work in churches, synagogues and mosques, as well as politics; they look after the environment; and they serve on boards and councils. There are 180,000 charities, according to my noble friend Lady Gould. Is not this a demonstration of social responsibility?
The problem is that people do not know about these activities, even though they are very relevant to most people's everyday life and experience. Other noble Lords have spoken about the importance of this relevance.
Curiously, our political parties seem to have lost this everyday relevance. There is a story about an MP who was canvassing in a tower block in Battersea. He decided to start at the top flat and work his way down. At the top flat he explained his party's policy on the euro, the NHS, funding universities and foreign policy, and then asked the voter if there was anything else he would like to know about. "What are you going to do to stop people urinating in the lift?", the voter asked. If political parties are to play a role in people's lives, they have to connect with people's lives. My noble friend Lord Chandos spoke about engagement, as did other noble Lords.

1173
This brings me to ideology. For organisations which are created around ideology, it seems extraordinary that political parties have handed over the creation of new policies and ideas to think tanks, NGOs and the media. We really have to win back this initiative. It is not easy because we have to win it back from organisations which have the luxury of campaigning on a single issue, as other noble Lords have mentioned. I agree with them that somehow political parties have to take the initiative in acknowledging that all these issues exist, but alongside each other.
I think that political parties have to go back and reinvent some of their basics, as business had to do in the 1970s. They have to win back their reputation of defending basic freedoms such as liberty and justice. To many, it seems that other organisations and the media are there to protect these freedoms while political parties are there just to bicker over them. Surely political parties should be a lot more robust in contrasting our society, where we have these freedoms, with other societies which do not. It is just one more way of demonstrating our social responsibility instead of just taking it for granted.
I know that for many people and many politicians the essential role of political parties is to organise well at an election. Nothing is more important for a politician than being in office—locally or nationally. However, that should not be to the exclusion of political parties demonstrating their social responsibility—demonstrating it through the voluntary and charitable work that political people undertake, by being socially aware and effective at all levels and by winning back the ideological initiative. That is how political parties will eventually play a much fuller role in public life. Otherwise, political parties will become social gatherings with a political theme.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for giving us the opportunity to draw the House's attention to the issue of public participation in politics, voter apathy, and the role of political parties in our society today. Like the noble Lord. Lord Dean, I also joined the youth wing of a political party many years ago. He alluded to the fact that in those years we had thousands of members. Times have changed. There is more television. There are more attractions for young people and more opportunities to meet members of the opposite sex.
The 2001 elections marked a highly significant downturn in the numbers of people turning out to vote in Britain, and if public disillusionment over domestic and international events during this Parliament have been anything to go by, that is a problem that politicians have seriously failed to address and a trend that looks set to continue. Unlike the Americans, we do not live in a country that could be accused of having too much democracy. We ask our citizens to vote only in European, national and local elections, and the occasional referendum when issues of constitutional importance arise. We must therefore ask ourselves why voters are turned off by politics, what we can do to address the problem, and how we can ensure that our political parties play a positive role in society in every
1174
aspect of their interaction with the public. We should be mindful that such a process should naturally find its origins in this House, as we have the tradition of debating issues in the fullest and most constructive fashion.
The end of the Cold War brought with it unexpected changes to the nature of the Western political party system, most notably in the United Kingdom and the United States. The distinctions or divisions between left and right became blurred. A third way emerged that often left political parties struggling to identify the key issues that distinguished them from each other, with voters becoming somewhat disengaged from the political process.
One of the key findings of research into public opinion on the 2004 elections carried out by MORI on behalf of the Electoral Commission and published in September 2003 stated:
"The widely reported voter apathy and disconnection seems to stem largely from the political process itself".
It is my belief that the most negative side effect of that is that we frequently see debates and political contests between the main parties that are fundamentally based upon opportunism, and are driven by competition for votes as opposed to any deeply held ideological debate or belief on a point of principle.
The immigration debate is a good example of that. We recently saw the Home Secretary taking the unusual step of calling for a truce with the Opposition over the issue. There are many issues in British politics that are far too delicate and fundamentally important to the public to be defined primarily by idiosyncratic party political interests. Consequently, there is a vacuum in British politics that can be filled by a more mature approach to political debate and policy formulation. The Government and the Opposition's handling of the Belfast agreement is a very good example of how the sting can be taken out of political debate for the benefit of political progress. There is no doubt that the public notice this, that such political action benefits the process greatly, and is of little or no harm to party politics.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, we have only to survey the newspapers from the past few weeks to garner an idea of the damage that has been done to our prestige internationally and to the Government domestically, through their campaign in Iraq. In fact, if one lesson has been clearly learned from the past two years, it is that the British electorate will simply not swallow whatever line the Government churn out to promote a policy. The public will simply not accept that it is in our national interest to invade another country just because the Government say so. Neither will the public accept that such an invasion is an exercise in promoting democracy and democratic standards abroad. The weapons of mass destruction smokescreen fooled nobody and has consequently damaged the Prime Minister and this Government. Rather than having been seen to practise and promote an ethical foreign policy, the Government have been seen to have misinterpreted our national interests and caused our traditional interest and standing in the Middle East to suffer.

1175
This House should be in no doubt that many citizens have become disillusioned with the lack of participation in British politics that has been uppermost and apparent in recent years. It is clear that our political system does not take public opinion into consideration to the same extent as many of our European counterparts. We must remember that politicians are merely the representatives of the British citizenry and if we fail to exercise the general will of the population, we have failed them, failed the system, and failed ourselves.
Political parties are society's role models and the sounding board for all the issues that influence and dominate people's lives. As such, political parties have an intrinsic duty to conduct politics in the most meaningful and constructive way possible. That means having honest debates about issues such as immigration, race relations and crime. The Government should start by paying more attention to what is said in this House on such issues, adjusting their policies on the basis of the needs and interests of the voters, and creating a progressive culture of political co-operation between parties when our national interests are at stake.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Chandos for giving us this opportunity for debate. I first want to take us away from concern with British politics or even the politics of developed countries and examine the role of political parties on a wider scale. If I have time, I will probably return to our own situation.
The Prime Minister has launched his Africa commission. Many of us are interested in why Africa is not developed. Of the many analyses of development problems that we have heard—technical and economic problems, for example—we have now arrived at governance as an important missing ingredient. I argue that it is not governance that matters, but politics. Countries that do not have good politics cannot have good governance, and politics is supplied by political parties.
If we look at the political and economic health of African countries, we see that what those countries lack is a political culture or political life. Very often they are one-party states, as my noble friend pointed out. They are also one-party states with very narrow membership and no tradition of political discussion. Few countries in Africa have succeeded in having multiple political parties. Even though some of those parties have been corrupt, the parties have kept each other on their toes. Parties correct each other—the party opposite always being holier than the party in government. That culture is necessary to establish good governance. It does not come out of technical reports or instrumental approaches; it comes out of the activities of citizens. Political parties are the mobilisers, the aggregators, of citizens' activities.
One of the questions the commission should answer—if any of its members reads Hansard—is: what can we do to encourage healthy and rivalrous political life in Africa? The success of South Africa, for
1176
example, is largely due to the fact that the ANC has not become the only political party. However, in Zimbabwe, ZANU has swallowed up ZAPU. When that happens the quality of political life is lost.
It is not that some of the political parties are vital to democracy but that political parties create the possibility of democracy. Looking at our own historical experience, we tend to believe that democracy has been here since 1066—or at least since 1832. But full adult franchise did not come until 1928 and political parties, especially mine, were instrumental in agitating for a broadening of the franchise. When political parties have worked for such a broadening and for protecting and establishing political freedoms and human rights, their countries have had a rich political life and good governance.
We take those things for granted today. We have almost forgotten that mass democracy is a recent arrival on our shores. It is good to remember that because it is only when political parties have continuously worked for it, often in extra-parliamentary action, that conditions for good parliamentary democracy are created.
The problem is that in many countries—not only in Third World countries but in Japan, Mexico, Italy and India—there is one-party dominance. If that party has a democratic culture, it manages to create a better democracy. The Congress Party in India is a good example of that. Even while it was the dominant party for approximately 40 years, and all the Prime Ministers came from that party, there was still a healthy democracy because within the Congress Party there was never dominance by a single faction or a single person. However, that did not happen in Mexico or Japan. Indeed, in Italy the Christian Democrats ended up as an extremely corrupt political party, causing all kinds of problems for that country.
Therefore, we must look, first, for a system of political parties because there are multi political parties. If that is not the case, we must see whether whichever political party is dominant has diversity and rivalrous factions which might be able to guarantee a difference of opinion and challenge established positions because that will guarantee democracy.
That brings me to voter apathy, mentioned by some noble Lords today. Political experience here and abroad shows that we need sharp differences both economically and socially, and perhaps ideologically, in order to establish a stable political party with a large membership. It is not just that ideology has extinguished, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said, but that by and large class differences have vanished. We still talk the language of class, but in terms especially of a large working-class population which felt and behaved differently and whose consumption patterns were different from the middle-class, the reality is that class differences have disappeared due to increasing prosperity. So while people talk in terms of coming from such and such a region and of being a Geordie, a Scouser or whatever—having regional identifiers to distinguish themselves from each other—the class identifiers work less and less. They have to go back to their great grandfathers in order to claim their working-class origin.

1177
In a society which is increasingly homogeneous, in which there are few differences, it is hard to define political parties which would differ. All you have are alternate programmes of competent government, and competent government does not excite much interest. Whichever party is in power, the government will, by and large, be competent. No great crisis is likely, no matter who conies to power. There is no reason why citizens should say, "I'm going to join the party and improve the country", or, "My ambition is to establish a better region or nation". Therefore, we should not be surprised if that is the case. We should be happy that while citizens are apathetic, at least they are not hostile.
7.26 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai, particularly when he is in one of his philosophical moods. He epitomises the non-deferential society to which the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, referred in opening and which government Whips will affirm as their experience of the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
For some it has been a nostalgic debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, reminded us of those wonderful days when the Young Conservatives was the greatest marriage bureau in the country. And he was wrong —it was unique because no other political party could match it. Furthermore, in my part of the country much Conservative recruitment depended on the fact that the Conservative clubs inevitably had the best snooker tables.
The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, subtly tried to emphasise his comparative youth by attributing the words, "He would, wouldn't he?" to Christine Keeler. Those of us who are old enough to have been around at the time know that that was Mandy Rice Davies. We certainly would not like to see that misattribution rest in Hansard. And we had a good old romp around BBC paranoia from the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and we were all the better for it.
But we are grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for the timeliness of the debate because the party machines are gearing up for 10 June. Those of us who will go out on the doorstep know what we will hear: "You're all as bad as each other"; "You're only in it for what you get out of it"; "I never vote". I have to tell your Lordships that when I receive those responses I make the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, sound almost diplomatic. I do not accept them. I have been in politics for 40 years. It was said of Elizabeth Taylor that she must believe in the institution of marriage because she got married eight times. Well, I must believe in political parties because I have been in three of them. I have not found those responses to be the image of party activists because most are committed to their communities and beliefs.
But there is a cynicism and an apathy, which is worrying. They were evident in the fall in party membership, the low turnout in elections and the lack of involvement by the young. As we all recognise, democracy needs active democrats to make it work and we need political parties to channel activism into
1178
public service. I am not as admiring of Cross-Benchers as the noble Viscount. I like many of them but I have never accepted that not having a party-political affiliation gives one some higher state of grace to opine on politics of the day. As has been emphasised, party politics makes our system work. It is often the party politicians who stand, as my noble friend Lord Shutt said, against extremism in places such as Burnley. It was the party politicians who took a stand when militant Trotskyism was abroad in the Labour Party.
So how do we breathe fresh life into party politics? I am not sure that the answer lies simply in making it easier to vote. We have to ensure that these experiments and new systems are both corruption and intimidation-free. Anyway, I am old fashioned enough to see my active voting as a commitment and tribute to the sacrifices of those who went before me. For the time being at least, leave me with a stubby pencil. Every time I go to vote I think that I am benefiting from the sacrifices of the suffragettes and the Chartists and everyone else. Unless voting has some kind of civic commitment it becomes meaningless. That is why I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, about the need for better civic education in schools and why I pay tribute to the work done in that field over the years by the Rowntree trust. I think that there should be more informational programmes on television about how parties work.
I am not sure that PR is the panacea that some of us thought it might be. The hard truth is that where it has been introduced it has not produced a dramatic increase in turnout. It is no worse than first-past-the-post elections, but thus far it has been no better. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, on state aid for political parties. I think that a lot of humbug and hypocrisy is talked about that issue. All the political parties have been taking state aid for well over 25 years and it is no use dressing it up in other words.
I hope that the commission examining these issues will consider one matter. I think that funding could be most beneficial at the organisational level. Too often, party agents spend far too much time trying to increase their own salaries. If there were some pump priming perhaps at the organisational level which could be tied to the number of members or checked off against taxation or whatever, it would help to revitalise parties.
I also think there should be another look at sonic of the absurd rules on funding at local level that we built into the political party funding Bill. Our debates on that legislation made it sound as though the post of local party treasurer was one of the prime offices of state for which any ambitious politician would reach. In fact, it is a damn difficult job. Now, with all the current sanctions, one could fall foul of the law by missing out on a report or failing to report rather small sums. The matter needs to be seriously reviewed to bring it into accord with the reality of running politics at local level.

1179
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, I think there should be a tight cap on individual and organisational donations. We must also retain the ban on television advertising—the corrupter of American politics.
Party democracy is a fragile balance. If the party outside Parliament is too ambitious for power over elected members then that balance can get out of kilter. However, if a party of government or a parliamentary party gets out of touch with its grass-root membership its very support will begin to wither. There has to be a balance.
When looking at political parties we also have to ask the question, "What, if not?". Without them we would see a far greater influence of extra-parliamentary bodies such as the press which so buffets our politicians. Mr Blair has said that he is much influenced by Mr Trevor Kavanagh and the Sun. All I can say is that the greatest of Labour Prime Ministers, Clem Attlee, used to read the Times, and only then for the cricket scores. One might think that Mr Blair would be a better Prime Minister if he adopted a similar attitude. There is no doubt that the culture of spin has debased British politics. I think that journalists themselves have a role in sustaining standards and our democracy.
I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. Those who are involved—the political activists—are not as self serving as the cynics say. Anyone like me who goes on the rubber chicken circuit on Friday nights will never cease to be in awe of the dedication of those who make up our political parties. I end with a quote from someone who was one of my earliest mentors and will certainly be known to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould—Dame Sarah Barker, national organiser of the Labour Party. She said:
"The triumph of ideals must be organised".
That is what political parties are, the triumph of ideals.
7.36 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for initiating this important debate, which he introduced with a most thoughtful and interesting contribution. It has been a fascinating debate all round and gave me great pleasure. It appeared to me that all the speakers are proud and enthusiastic of their own parties.
I enjoyed the contributions from both my noble friends. It is good to see my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree fully repaired and back in his usual ebullient form. I share his view of state funding of political parties. My noble friend Lord Patten brought us his usual flair and enthusiasm. I am delighted to join him in supporting my party as a Conservative.
This is an unusual House. Only two-thirds of us wear political or party political labels, though we learntlast weekend that the number of political Peers is to increase by 37—even though the number of peerages assigned to the Cross Benches is slightly less
1180
than the 20 per cent that most of us, and particularly my noble friend Lord Patten, would wish to see as the absolute minimum.
We are also unusual as a House in that, though we all care passionately for what we believe in, we are never aggressively partisan—perhaps I should say "almost never". Long may it stay that way.
This cross-party courtesy illustrates a key point. Some see political parties as a threat. However, when they act with restraint, political parties can serve a body without altering its character or corrupting the institution as a whole. But the issue of restraint is crucial. Certainly, bad politics can corrupt. So-called politicisation of institutions that are not inherently political is almost always counterproductive, both for the institution and the political party. This is, I believe, one of the underlying reasons for the clear crisis of trust that now bedevils the present administration.
We have seen increased politicisation of the Civil Service and increased power for unelected party appointees inside government departments and the ever growing number of quangos. We have seen increased use of party focus groups for setting national policy priorities. Perhaps that is why the priorities change so often. And, sadly, we have seen increased bypassing of Parliament as the place where, in any democracy, the conflicting wishes of the population are brought together, debated and, ultimately, peacefully reconciled—a process in which the political parties, which under our system are themselves broad coalitions, play an indispensable role.
The Government sadly fail to see that any government are immeasurably stronger if they carry Parliament with them and do not try to act on party lines alone. No government have been more obsessed—or for long, so successful—in securing headlines for the party in power. But that has ended by being a self-defeating process. Over-politicisation of public life has bred cynicism; it has turned people off, and they simply feel let down.
We must all acknowledge with sadness a growing perception that politicians and the political process have little to offer. At the last general election, turnout was a dismal 59 per cent. In next month's elections we shall be lucky in some areas if a quarter of the electorate actually turns out to vote. Some respond by ascribing blame to our electoral process. The Government and the Electoral Commission seem to fall over each other in thinking up ever more gimmicky plans, such as banning the traditional ballot box and using all-postal ballots with votes cast before an election is half under way; talk of Internet voting, as if a general election were some kind of Sky television poll; stopping local councils electing by thirds—a process which keeps them in active touch with local opinion; votes at 16; reducing the number of ward councillors and creating a new breed of highly paid regional assemblymen; the absurdity of three different electoral systems being used on one day, to the total confusion of London voters.
Our electoral process has become a dog's breakfast in the past few years and, if we go on like this, will finish as a dog's dinner. All this is treating the symptoms, not the cause, and losing some very

1181
important elements along the way. I was proud of this House's sadly unavailing fight against closed lists in European elections. Closed lists are an abomination, taking choice of their representative away from the people and handing it to party bosses. I was proud, too, of our more recent battle, sadly also finally unavailing, to save the traditional polling station and ballot box in the north of England.
Generations of people fought for the right to vote, at home and on many a foreign field. When a new democracy is horn, as in South Africa, the most moving sight is always the patience and pride with which people queue to vote at polling stations. One of my earliest memories is going with my mother and grandmother when they voted. They understood the sacrifice that had been made to get women the vote, and they were determined to use it.
The traditional ballot is secret, almost incorruptible and a protection against manipulation and abuse. When one steps into the polling booth to pick up that stubby pencil on a piece of string or one sees the votes tipped out on to the table for counting, one senses the awesome dignity of the democratic process. I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that voting in person is a commitment. By all means use postal ballots—although I shudder to think, with the present state of the Royal Mail, how many ballot papers will arrive at all. But why ban what works so well? I simply do not understand it.
I would like to see less fiddling about with the election process. hope that the Electoral Commission will take note and that there is a return to dealing with the real cause of falling turnout. That is a manner of conducting politics that leaves people with a sense that what they think does not matter and that those in power will do whatever suits them at the time.
It is easy to disparage political parties, but it is wrong. I am proud to speak as a member of the largest and oldest political party in Britain, whose membership is rising fast. But all political parties are great voluntary organisations. They must never become arms of the state—still less think that they own the state. They are vehicles for the hopes and ideals of millions.
We should recognise what those who support and work for all the major political parties give our country in local councils, in work for voluntary bodies and in their concern for others. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, I believe that those who join political parties are belongers and doers, but all my experience tells me that they belong and do, not for themselves, but for what they believe their ideals can do for others. I hope that the cynical manipulation at the top that we have seen in the last few years and which has so disappointed thousands of members and former members of the Government's own party will prove a passing aberration. I hope that political parties can again be viewed as they were in the past—as a vehicle for hundreds of thousands of often very different people to come together to work for what they all believe is a better future for this great country.
7.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, it is good to have the opportunity to respond to the House and to my noble friend Lord Chandos on this issue, in drawing attention to the role of parties in public life. At one level, what is striking is that the role of parties in liberal democracies in our society now is almost exactly the same as it has been for at least the past 150 years or so, since the progressive move towards universal suffrage from the 1860s onwards.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, put it at its best with that lovely quotation that the triumph of ideals must be organised. That is, above all, what political parties have had as one of their central aims: the articulation of a vision and of the debate in public life around sets of ideas. Clearly, the subsidiary role of parties has been to organise campaigns, recruit candidates, provide the building blocks for government, define political career paths and, not least, to recruit potential political players at local and national level. Those are the classic roles of political parties in liberal democracies. They have been for 150 years, and they are still the characteristics that we see today.
Parties dominate the organisation of local, national and European elections in Britain—in the United Kingdom—in ways that they have never done before. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, was quite right to point out that local government elections, which at least nominally in the past in large part appeared to be non-party political, are mostly party politically run.
What is the problem? Is there a problem? The conundrum—although I am not certain that it is a problem—is that the roots of parties on any objective measure are weaker and thinner than they once were. By roots I mean the scale of their membership and the numbers of activists, and the degree to which the population at large identifies itself with those parties as a defining characteristic of its own personal identity. That is what has changed. Clearly the membership no longer funds parties in any substantial way, although it makes contributions; it is not the dominant funding source, as the party arithmetic shows.
Parties are no longer the main vehicle for governance. All governments have to govern with and through interest groups, public consultation processes and expert advice. It is not something that one does directly with the mass membership of the partnership with the party, although it plays a role. Membership of the party is no longer the crucial or central communication vehicle for the national party with the public. Membership is not irrelevant but, clearly, mass media is the central vehicle by which all national parties seek to get their message across.
As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, helpfully pointed out, we should not be totally narrow and insular in our perspective in this debate, although the debate has naturally enough tended to focus on the United Kingdom. In Britain, that point apart, we are left with one question: why has membership declined and does it matter for liberal democracy'? At one level, I would

1183
suggest that functions of parties nationally are the same as they have always been, and that they have been remarkably successful at adapting themselves to the loss of membership while still being able to fulfil the classical functions.
So why has membership declined, and does it matter? It is not that the role of politics has collapsed. From about 1973 to about now, there is a drop of about 60 per cent to 50 per cent, if I recollect the figures correctly. There is a drop, but that is not a complete collapse. The arguments have been touched on by a number of noble Lords—by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others—that it is true that we are less class based and ideologically based and we define ourselves less in party terms. There is weaker ideological identification. One way of putting that is that the public has a life outside party politics. People have such a range of interests and options, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, pointed out, that membership of a political party is in competition with a range of other opportunities. Who are we as politicians to say that our obsession is more important than their obsessions with golf or whatever?
This is speculation rather than evidence based, but I think that the other reason is that parties are less life-critical to people than they would have been in the past. If one reflects on what it felt like to be unemployed in Britain in the 1920s, it was your party that gave you hope. It was your party that gave you the prospect that you would not continue to be unemployed, that your children would not be hungry and that if they got ill, they might not die as a result of the lack of education. I have just sufficient imagination to perceive that if I were a small property owner in a rural part of Britain in the 1920s I might have felt threatened by what I would have seen as political extremism and the threat of revolution in society in Britain. We are not in that world any longer. Parties are not our routes to salvation or perdition. We have a more consensual society and a wealthier society. That does not mean to say that what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, defined as the "articulation of hopes, values and visions" is any less important but it is a more complex process of debate. Those are some speculations on why membership might have declined but I have not seen much detailed research to substantiate them.
Is membership decline a problem? The point I touched on is that all three of the parties have had the most remarkable decline in membership over the past 10 or 20 years. If one looks at the graph of the decline and projects it forward the amusing conclusion is that in about 10 years' time there will be no members left. Fortunately it does not work like that. But the decline in mass membership of all three parties is one of the characteristics of democracy in this society. What is striking is that the parties still seem to be able to continue to perform the classical roles of parties that other noble Lords articulated earlier on. The parties appear to have found other sources of funding. There are clearly issues and worries about the exposure of parties to funding from donors and what donors might
1184
expect, or might be perceived by the public to expect, as a consequence of their donations. Clearly parties have also adapted to the fact that they have to communicate using the media because there are not many other vehicles for them to use. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, spoke on that. I did not share her view about what the leadership of the Labour Party has done in that respect, but that will not surprise her.
Clearly there is an issue—the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, touched on it—that if parties are incapable of getting enough interest in their activities to field candidates, we are in deep trouble. Although we have not, as yet, seen that at national level, we have certainly seen it at local level. Many the friendship that has been broken in the past by one friend saying to another, "Please stand—we really must have somebody in this seat but you have no hope of winning, and you are perfectly safe", only to find that the candidate is elected and condemned to perdition or a joyful experience, depending on the point of view, for the next four years. So there are some areas of worry.
That apart, parties still seem to manage to fulfil these functions, despite the decline in membership. There is one area where we have seen that they have not been able to continue, because of the lack of mass membership: they are no longer the force for social cohesion at a local level that they were historically in many communities and societies. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, gave one of the nicest examples of that and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, also referred to it as the contribution of nominal membership of political parties to relationship building and other forms of activity through the Young Conservatives. If we have seen any decline in party political membership, the decline and collapse of the Young Conservatives' membership is the true social horror of our time. My God, how are people finding partners in rural Britain from now on? But they seem to be getting by.
I do not think that the nature of the problem is particularly clear. It is complex, which makes the debate about what we should do much more difficult. The first point that I would mark is that the stance of political parties towards the fact that the electorate do not seem to want to engage—to imply the electorate must change—is the route to hell, as we all know. If the politics are not with us, parties have to change, rather than the politics. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, reminded us—some of us might have forgotten—that there is the alternative route of changing party, but that is a sub-plot to this, although I recognise the genuineness of that process.
A lot has been happening on funding. Two things have been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. There is already a substantial amount of funding going in, both for policy formation—so it should—and to support the parliamentary process, as it also should. Why should people be forced to suffer from being active participants in the process of parliamentary democracy or parties be starved of making creative contributions to policy and political thinking? Clearly, a lot has been done, I would assert, by this Government to try to make the funding of

1185
political parties more transparent and cleaner. We accepted the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and were glad that we did so. It is important that the public do not believe that there is any reality behind allegations of, or concerns about, sleaze.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, we must be concerned if any party member is disqualified, or is deterred from taking a role in public life, as a result of being tarred with being a crony or as a result of being seen as a political appointee. That would be lamentable because it would mean that some of the most talented people in our society, from all parties, might be deterred. Perhaps people have to be rough and tough and big enough to take a bit of the rubbishing that one sometimes get from the national media and still take on these roles.
Is there a case for more funding? In a sense, we have to be clear about for what, for whom and by what mechanism. I am not going to say more than that, although it was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. The Electoral Commission will report on this in the summer and that will give us plenty of opportunity to have a further, informed debate on that issue.
Should we change the electoral system? It is not clear that changing the electoral system would increase party membership or increase turnout. If those are the problems, it is not self-evident. Other arguments are advanced for PR, but the evidence does not support it to address the issues that we have been talking about. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. If we were to change the voting system, what would change in time would be the political parties because they have to adapt to the voting system, otherwise they are in trouble. But that is to go round in a circle. I do not think that changing the electoral system would alter interest in politics or trust in politicians. If it is to be argued, it must be on other grounds.
I thought that one of the most creative arguments I heard this evening about what should be done to address these issues was advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. It was basically that it is lonely being in a party of one—self-evidently it must be true—and therefore people should pay attention to that and create a second Green. I am sure that those who think on these matters will have noted the comment but I would not advise him to hold his breath immediately.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, about a more mature political debate is right. The extent to which the public think that politicians conduct debate about complex issues only in slogans, slang and simplifications, has an insidious effect over time on their belief in politics and in party politics and the contribution of party politics to our society. I acknowledge with gratitude the way in which he affirmed the presentation of the Belfast agreement in that respect but will duck what he said about Iraq, for reasons that he will understand.
Although the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, alleged it—and I would be happy to have evidence of it at another time—I do not think that I have seen either academically
1186
or in my own direct experience any evidence of the increased politicisation of the Civil Service. I have been seriously impressed as a Minister with the commitment to proper governmental processes and democratic processes by our civil servants, while also being a critic of their experience. It does civil servants an injustice to claim that they have been susceptible to, or influenced by, politicians in that respect. I have not seen it and I hope that I may never see it.
The only other thought I would leave is the following: if the public do not want to join political parties, why should they? That probably says something about how both political parties and government have to change their behaviour. You can no longer use the party machine or the party membership as your vehicle for debate and involvement; you have to find other means of involving and understanding where the public are in the formation of policy. By that I mean that government—and it is more difficult at national than at local level—have to have processes during the process of policy making and draft legislation of engaging vigorously with a variety of opinions in society and they should have the debate often, in public and private, around those elements of policy that concern people.
I refer to interest groups, voluntary organisations and different forms of association of the public, which is where the public choose to put their allegiances and identification. It is a fact of life that politicians and governments have to learn to use those new identifications of the public as ways of involving them in governance and in understanding how best to shape policy and to set out an agenda and legislation.
We have had a fascinating debate; at least, I have found it fascinating. We have marked that there is a significant shift in the way that parties behave and perform but not in their fundamental roles. Some interesting issues were discussed about how they sustain activists and how they sustain their funding, but I did not hear anyone say that there is a single magic bullet that we all should look to to change the scene that we have painted. That is why I welcome continuing debate about these issues. I believe that we have another one next week and no doubt we will have others as the Electoral Commission and others stimulate us to think about how we shape the operations of a liberal democracy in our society, and the contribution that party politics make to that.
8.2 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, in thanking all noble Lords who have spoken today, I can say only that the debate has proved to be everything I hoped it would be. I have been corrected on my memory of the difference between Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice Davies, for which I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as I was for his reminder of the eight husbands of Elizabeth Taylor.
I worked out that if you aggregated the number of parties to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and I have belonged—never, I believe, one at the same time—I believe that we just about match

1187
Elizabeth Taylor, although if I am allowed to claim at least two different Labour parties, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, suggested, I think that we exceed it.
The unpredictability of party politics was certainly demonstrated when I found myself a more fervent advocate of electoral reform for Westminster than the Front Bench spokesman for the Liberal Democrat Party. With that said, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Business
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, have indicated a wish to speak in the debate in the gap on the Unstarred Question for the usual maximum of four minutes. On that basis there should just about be ample time, but I ask noble Lords to bear that in mind in the length of their speeches.

Food Labelling
8.4 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take to combat misleading food labelling and to promote healthy eating, especially in children.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my principal purpose this evening is to draw attention to the serious health hazards of misleading food labelling—not least the avoidable chronic illnesses and preventable disabilities it can inflict on children—and the urgent need for stronger safeguards.
Noble Lords know of my interest in chronic illness and disability as the first Minister for Disabled People from 1974–79 and before then, as a Private Member, the author and promoter of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That interest alone makes the health hazards of misleading food labelling an issue of deep concern to me. It explains, too, my work to reduce the daunting difficulties—and dangers—faced by over 2 million visually impaired people in trying to cope with labelling that totally ignores their existence.
The presence of my noble friend Lord Warner is most welcome. He was a promising young official at the then Department of Health and Social Security when I was a Minister. His duties often involved him in work on ministerial speeches. Now he makes them and I much look forward to hearing him wind up the debate with all his customary care, courtesy and social commitment.
To be fair to him—and not everyone is always fair to Ministers—he has direct ministerial responsibility only in the Department of Health, but in answering questions in your Lordships' House he must answer for the Government as a whole including—which is never easy, even for its own Ministers—the termites of the Treasury. Many departments are involved in issues that will be addressed in this debate. One is the energy imbalance that results from eating too much and
1188
exercising too little, in which the Departments for Education and Skills, and for Culture, Media and Sport—no less than the Department of Health—have an interest.
All three departments were involved in the launch last week of the Government's major new "keep fit, not fat" campaign for increased physical activity to tackle what was described as:
"the 'couch potato' culture now consuming the nation".
It was stated also that:
"physical inactivity and obesity cost the country more than £10 billion a year".
And there was a call for:
"immediate action to halt an epidemic of chronic diseases".
Yet some 200 school sports grounds have been sold off even since the Government introduced measures specifically designed to halt sales in December 1998. Ministerial consent was refused in only six cases. Thousands of playing fields have gone. London alone has lost the equivalent of seven Hyde Parks of green recreational space since 1989, while Sport England rarely uses its virtual veto over playing field sales.
That is just one reason for growing public concern about the want of a properly co-ordinated and credible response to the "keep fat, not thin" way of life that misleading food labelling now so powerfully encourages. Another reason for that concern is that, while the Chief Medical Officer rightly described childhood obesity in his annual report of 2002 as,
"a public health time-bomb",
waiting to explode, its prevalence has continued to rise and the time-bomb ticks dangerously on.
Meanwhile teachers and parents alike ask why the weighing and health checks that used to be a regular feature of school life no longer happen. Members of Parliament ask how it is that Finland, which in the 1980s had an obesity rate twice as high as ours, now has a rate of 11 per cent compared to Britain's 22 per cent. Religious leaders ask why policy-making so often assumes that low-income families have the same freedom as others to choose healthy eating. And people generally ask why so many policy decisions are taken ad hoc and are seemingly unrelated to an overall strategy. Are we, some ask, creating, as it were, an "ad hocracy" where policy is made on the hoof?
I have two other interests in this debate. Within days of entering the House of Commons, 40 years ago, I joined Fred Peart at the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as his Parliamentary Private Secretary and stayed with him there until, in 1968, he became Leader of the House. In those four years I learned much about food policies that still influences my thinking today. Time was, not long before then, when we had a Minister of Food with a seat in the Cabinet. Now food no longer appears even in any ministerial title and that, I fear, is one reason why proper co-ordination seems lacking.
My other interest in the debate, which I declare with pride, is that of lifelong membership of the Co-operative movement. I have held its highest elective office as President of the Co-operative Congress and chaired, in

1189
2001–02, the Review Board that created the Co-operative Group (CWS) Limited—the world's biggest consumer co-operative. Having just read the group's annual report for 2003, I rejoice now in the many achievements of its first two full years.
Two other former Congress Presidents are here with me this evening: my good and noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Fyfe. They will be mindful, as I am, that several of our predecessors in that distinguished office also served in your Lordships' House. I think the earliest of them—his identity still surprises some noble Lords—was the Earl of Rosebery who presided over the Co-operative Congress held in Glasgow in 1890, four years before becoming Liberal Prime Minister.
I know my noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Fyfe share my admiration for the lead which our movement—notably the Co-operative Group—takes in protecting shoppers from unscrupulous food labelling. That leadership reflects a tradition of ethical trading that goes all the way back to its birth in Rochdale in 1844. It was in response to grossly unethical trading that the Cooperative movement was horn. And the abuse of consumers by unscrupulous food labelling today, although far more subtle, is hardly less culpable than that perpetrated in Rochdale 160 years ago.
Among the damaging health effects of misleading consumers about the contents of the food they buy, none is more worrying than the relentless rise in the prevalence of obesity. Data from the Department of Health show that more than half of UK adults are now officially overweight or obese. In the past decade obesity has doubled. It now affects more than 15 per cent of adults, 10 per cent of 6 year-olds and 20 per cent of 15 year-olds. On average it cuts life expectancy by nine years and 50 per cent of people now obese have at least one associated health problem: heart disease, stroke, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes, degenerative joint diseases and some cancers. If the current trend continues, one quarter of the population will be obese by the end of the decade.
In a recent article Sir John Krebs, who chairs the Food Standards Agency, wrote:
"The kids on their way to school at the end of my road in Oxford are eating their breakfast as they go: a can of cola, a large confectionery bar and a bag of crisps. There couldn't be a more graphic illustration of the problem with many children's diets: too much sugar, salt and fat and too many empty calories".
Children are, he says,
"bombarded with messages encouraging them to eat foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar",
and, he says,
"nothing is not an option in facing the challenge this presents".
The Co-operative movement did not wait for any official prompting to act in exposing unethical and unscrupulous practices in the promotion and advertising of food. Over the past seven years—starting before the FSA existed—it has published a trilogy of reports: Lie of the Label, Lie of the Label 2 and Blackmail. Taken together they constitute the most devastating critique of deceptive and dishonest food labelling yet published.
The impact of the trilogy on informed and influential opinion testifies to its status. The first two reports won the support of the Consumers Association in Food labels, the hidden truth and in the FSA's Consumer attitudes to food standards. Their impact was further increased by NOP research and the report of a survey of the marketplace which quotes a label bearing the legend:
"80 per cent fat free crisps".
Shown the label, 61 per cent of NOP's respondents said it was a low-fat product. In fact, it was almost all fat and, when told the truth, 80 per cent said that such claims should be unlawful.
The trilogy as a whole won praise from my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, then a health Minister. He praised also the extent to which the Co-operative movement's precepts were matched by performance, as exemplified by its clear and comprehensive labelling and commitments:

"to avoid direct marketing and advertising to children of products high in fat, sugar or salt (where products contain above 20, 10 or 1.25 grams per 100 grams respectively);

"not to advertise high-fat, sugar and salt products in specific children's titles or adjacent to children's pages in newspapers;

"not to give free samples, or promote by demonstration in stores, any high-fat, sugar and salt products aimed specifically at children;

"not to use high-profile character merchandising in stores to promote high-fat, sugar and salt products aimed at children;

"not to display child-targeted products which are high in fat, sugar or salt at supermarket checkouts, where children may exert 'pester power' while queuing with parents to pay for grocery shopping;

"and clear labelling of dental health warnings on high-sugar products, such as sweets and soft drinks, across all appropriate Co-op brand goods".

All of these and other Co-operative commitments—and I am grateful to Dr Christine Humphreys of the Co-operative Group for updating me on them and for all her other help—featured in the FSA's 2003 options paper as elements that could be adopted in a code of practice for responsible promotion of food to children and parents.
For the good of child health, it is crucially important for food labelling to be clear, readily understandable and governed by effective legislation. But that is not happening now, and shoppers are left in the dark about how much fat, sugar and salt are in the products they eat and give to their children. Yet many household names among the producers of chocolate, sweets and soft drinks now hide the truth, making any meaningful attempts to achieve a balanced diet impossible.
Hiding the truth is one of seven "deadly sins" documented in the Co-operative critique of food labelling. Others are: the use of meaningless terms to enhance a product's name, such as "wholesome" and "natural"; clever photography to mislead shoppers about actual contents; over-claims such as dried pasta "free from preservatives" when none is allowed; detail of what is not in products instead of what is; and the use of poor contrast and small font, making important

1191
ingredient information hard to find and read even for people with 20:20 vision and mocking the plight of the visually impaired.
Taken together, these economies with the truth alone make a formidable case for more effective legislation. Before saying any more about sinning, however, I turn to a striking example of virtue: namely, Britain's "first" in creating the technology to Braille the packaging of retail goods. While, as we have seen, many strive hard to hide vital information from sighted people, this Co-operative achievement is now making it clearly available to people who are blind.
The new technology was recognised by many prestigious awards. It has since been shared with the industry as a whole, facilitating the application of Braille to an ever-increasing range of consumer goods. This also demonstrated that, while the development process was long, time-consuming and costly, it was not undertaken for commercial gain but rather as an expression of social responsibility and human concern.
This debate was thought likely to take place close to publication of the Government's Food and Health Action Plan, which was expected from the Department of Health last week. It has been postponed and I am sure that my noble friend will want to explain why and let us know as much as can now be said about the document. I have sought to show by detailing the widely practised dishonesties still permitted by labelling legislation that stronger legislation is urgently needed to protect consumers. While postponement of the plan's publication is extremely disappointing, at least it enables contributors to this debate to make their suggestions for what it should include, and I am sure there will be no shortage of them.
For my part, I hope most of all that the Government will be seen to have been listening to the Consumers Association, the National Consumer Council—chaired with such distinction by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for six years—and other widely respected bodies, as well as by ethical traders like the Co-operative Group which show, day by day, that it is not incompatible with commercial success. I am reminded this evening of' Mark Twain's remark that,
"a lie can be half way round the world before truth has got his boots on".
I hope soon to see the Government challenging that advantage with stronger safeguards in their action plan. I know that my noble friend will do his best to sustain that hope in this debate.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Morris. He speaks from the heart, from his experience and from his roots. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Roper, in his place because he has the same kind of background as outlined by my noble friend Lord Morris. I declare an interest as a consultant to the Co-operative Group. Like my noble friend Lord Morris, I shall refer to certain events.
1192
My noble friend Lord Morris mentioned 1844. Those who know the movement and the Rochdale pioneers will also pay tribute to the Rochdale principles. One of them was to have no adulterated goods. It took me a long time to find out what "adulterated" means. I did not believe it was a dirty word, but adulteration, watering down, giving tea and sugar something they should not have, something impure, was the bane of the working classes in times past. One of the principles on which the co-operative movement was started was to abolish adulteration.
I take the view that, in this short debate, we are taking part in a campaign to raise the awareness of the public to the dangers if we do not change our eating habits. Years ago one of the jobs that I had in the Co-operative Group was as education secretary in a society called Enfield Highway. I was very proud and very happy. That was in the early 1950s and living in Hertford was a man called Caspar Brook. He was the main inspirer for the creation of the Consumers' Association and the magazine Which?
I like to believe that I was in at the beginnings of the stirrings of the movement which still tries to alert people. One of my jobs in organising conferences and providing speakers for the Women's Guild and other organisations was to look at what was then a newfangled idea called consumer education. Not many people did that. I had to arrange exhibitions and demonstrations concerned with meat and I arranged for the local Co-operative Group butcher to explain that one can go into a shop and be lackadaisical or one can know what to look for and what to ask for. Then the fruit and vegetable manager would talk about fruit and vegetables and their value in a diet.
My noble friend Lord Morris quite rightly paid proper attention to the work of the co-operative movement which, for a long time, was alone in pioneering such care and concern about what we ate. That is not still the case, as most of the Co-operative Group's competitors, whom I shall not mention for obvious reasons—I do not want to give them any advertising—have learned over the past 50 years that, besides taking money over the counter, there is value to a commercial organisation in paying attention to how it buys and what it sells, which is very good.
In this place I am experienced in realising and sensing that we serve a purpose. When I returned from New Zealand six years ago, I had a DVT, which I had not heard of—thrombosis. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, I spoke in a debate—the Minister was the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I am satisfied that it was as a result of my alertness and awareness that the House created a Select Committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and upon which sat such eminent people as my noble friend Lord Winston, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and others. That committee reported.
Only in the past few days I have read in the newspapers that airlines recognise that the seat pitch—the distance between the seats—which under the Warsaw convention need be only 26 inches, but traditionally was 28 inches, now has to be 31 and 32 inches. They are now voluntarily moving the seats.

1193
I notice that British Airways is being very good. In recognising those who seek to take it to court for dereliction in respect of deaths occurring from this condition it has moved some way to make matters less difficult. I make that point.
I see my noble and good friend Lord Brookman in his place. He helped to initiate me. I went to a reception on the terrace a few months ago to listen to a group I had never heard of called the Celiac gluten-free movement. I have a store of other experiences. I think the lady was from Wolverhampton. She told me about the blight on her life borne out of a condition over which she literally had no control and of her need to be careful. She taught me a little more about reading labels. That is what the debate is about.
I have made a list of other groups that I have attended besides the groups in the House for DVT, diabetes, prostate, dystrophy and heart. I attend them all because I have conditions from which I suffer, survive and manage within the context of them all. The point I want to make is that as we grow older and become more susceptible to the onset of serious conditions we need to be very careful about what we eat.
I am very pleased that my noble friend has raised this issue, which allows us to say a few words in support. I think the establishment of the Food Standards Agency was a beacon in this respect. I do not claim credit for party or for organisation. There has been a gradual movement and recognition over the years. Certainly, more and more people recognise that one can very easily make a wrong purchase when one goes to the supermarket or to the market.
One phenomenon these days is to walk down the street and find that everyone seems to have a sore ear. What they are doing is listening to their mobiles. When one goes into a supermarket one finds a lot of people not simply grabbing stuff off the shelves but actually looking at the labels. From the information I have read, I am very taken by the fact that there are the big four and then there are the little four. The big four, as far as content is concerned, is information relating to energy, protein, carbohydrate and fat. One needs to understand what the ingredients are and to be able to read them. The others are sugars, saturates, fibre and sodium.
Very often one finds that manufacturers in a misleading way give on a label only the big four and not the little four. They pick and choose. The discerning shopper is the person who is prepared to spend a little time and sometimes perhaps a little money.
When I went to my diabetic clinic and saw the dietician, she drew my attention to a fact. She asked, "Do you like marmalade?" I said, "Yes, I like marmalade". She asked, "What kind do you have?" Of course I said, "The Co-op's if I can get it". She said, "Well you know marmalade is made especially for diabetics". I did not know that. I was glad I was told. Therefore, even if sometimes I do not eat it, I know that it is there.
1194
I have another illustration. My family has always drunk evaporated milk. It is a tradition. Evaporated milk is very heavy on fat, but most manufacturers have light evaporated milk or an evaporated milk that has been produced in such a way that the difficult contents are marginally reduced.
There is a lot of advice about. I am of course delighted at the part that the co-operative movement has played and is playing in these matters. No one will achieve a breakthrough. The figures that my noble friend Lord Morris gave for obesity are compelling and real. No one has an interest in maintaining that—even the people who produce the products, such as crisps, fizzy drinks and so on. They do not have an interest in watching the purchasers of their goods die earlier than they need. It needs a concerted campaign.
I know that the Government—as well as many others; but I talk about this Government, of whom I am proud to be a part—have a responsibility to support both agencies and organisations whose job it is to make people alert and aware. Here endeth the first lesson.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Fyfe of Fairfield: My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester on initiating this debate on this vital subject. Before it escapes my mind, my noble friend Lord Graham referred to diabetic marmalade and diabetic foods in general. I have the misfortune to suffer from that disease, and that specific diabetic food is not recommended, because it can have a devastating impact on some parts of the anatomy. Only some suffer from that: my noble friend Lord Graham obviously does not.
I was chairman of the Co-operative Group and its predecessor, the Co-operative Wholesale Society, for about 11 years. Clearly, anything that I have to say in my brief comments this evening will focus on the co-operative movement's involvement in healthy food and eating of recommended diets.
I suggest that there are three key ways in which retail activities can support broader nutritional strategies and therefore encourage activity to address obesity. Those include the formulation of own brands—especially, in this case, Co-op brand products—and how those products are marketed. That is a broad area that may encourage proper product labelling, merchandising and advertising. In addition, the Co-op's role within communities enables supportive nutritional education via stores in the form of labelling, leaflets and websites in the various communities within which we operate. Clearly, education has a major part to play by providing information on the website, in pamphlets and leaflets in stores and by other means of communication.
My noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Graham referred to the dangers, and I shall not elaborate on them, except by stating that obesity contributes to a number of life-threatening diseases. Indeed, diabetes is now being diagnosed in many adolescents, with a devastating impact on the remainder of their lives. So it has an impact at an early stage that endures for a considerable time—indeed, until their demise.

1195
In 1995, the Co-operative movement challenged its suppliers to reduce the amount of fat and salt in its own-brand products to help to achieve nutritional taskforce targets. Progressively, that has reduced levels of both in a range of products, with that work continuing. But it is difficult for a single retailer to make an impact because products are geared to maximum production, as I am sure your Lordships will appreciate, and producing one-off products for a specific retailer often does not make sense for a major manufacturer.
In addition to its standard range, the Co-op provides a wide range of healthier alternative products. The clear, distinctive logo helps consumers to choose healthier alternatives. Strict nutritional criteria apply to those products, supported by on-pack claims. A maximum of 3 per cent fat applies to all ready-made meals in the range.
There is still a long way to go on honest labelling. There is a clear need for comprehensive and well-presented labelling that sets the standard for the industry. Calorie and salt content are indicated on the front of all Co-op brand label products. No other retailer does that at present. However, I am confident that the experience of the Co-operative movement will help to encourage other retailers to follow that path. Products are described as having high, medium or low fat content, but that can be extremely confusing. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to that fact. What precisely is low fat? In some extreme cases, it could mean around 50 per cent fat content.
The Co-op has highlighted dietary issues through public campaigns, identifying sources of poor diet and opportunities for improvement. Our 1997 report, The Plate of the Nation, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, raised the nature of diet generally and intensified debate on the topic. That was followed by The Lie of the Label, which addressed a range of labelling activities that might hinder consumer appreciation of the nature, composition and nutritional make-up of products. It also identified clear approaches to support positive steps that provide clear consumer information on labels, helping them to make informed choices that support their dietary needs. The expression "informed choices" is important, as it highlights the deficiency of proper, honest and simple advice on food content. Let us be straightforward: it is sensible, not patronising, to say that that often applies, perhaps to a harassed housewife with several children, operating on a budget and with neither the time, energy nor sometimes the inclination to understand food labels.
In 2002, we advocated a bolder route to the provision of such information through labelling, following consumer research into the value that they gained from nutrition information on many different types of pack and different brands. As outlined in The Lie of the Label II, that identifies potential opportunities for development of labelling formats that would provide greater clarity of information for consumers, therefore supporting improved access to a more balanced diet.
The Co-op Group has recently acquired the convenience store chain Alldays, adding 600 stores to its portfolio—a good acquisition. We found that Alldays
1196
concentrated on newspapers, tobacco, cigarettes and a high proportion of foods that could not be regarded as particularly healthy. It is a mammoth task to convert those stores into ones that have some consideration for dietary points. We actively support the Department of Health initiative to encourage people to eat a minimum of five portions of fruit and vegetables a day. One might say that that is common sense, but there are still substantial depths of ignorance about food.
When I reread what I had typed out this afternoon, frankly some of it sounded a bit holier than thou. I would not want it to be interpreted as being holier than thou. I do not want to sound in the least sanctimonious or self-righteous when I talk about the Co-operative Group's initiatives in this field. They contribute greatly to the nation's health and to its economy. Neither do I want to see us become a nanny state and adopt attitudes such as, "the man in Whitehall knows best". We do not need to attack that philosophy, because it does not exist. I hope that it never does exist, but we could attack it through better information and education.
I am of a sedentary disposition, despite in my younger days playing a respectable game of golf and an average game of squash. My noble friend Lord Morris referred to the importance of exercise, and I was going to refer also to the disposal of a number of playing fields over the past few years, which is really depressing news. All kinds of sport, individual sports and team sports, should be encouraged so it should be a dual attack on bad health, based on good exercise and a sensible diet.
Finally, on a domestic point, our catering facilities in this House might well be reviewed from time to time to try to ensure that they encourage your Lordships to have a healthy diet.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I beg leave to speak in the gap. This is another occasion when the House is indebted to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester. The effort that he puts into what I call worthy causes is remarkable. If this had been a football match—we were talking about sport a moment ago—the score at half time would be the Co-op four, Sainsbury's and the others nil. It looks that way so far.
I declare two interests. I am, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said, co-chair of the newly formed all-party coeliac group, which works closely with Coeliac UK, and I am pleased to be doing that. Like the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I knew nothing about this disease—it is called a disease—until it struck home, so to speak. Then I took an interest. I have a grandson who is on a dairy-free diet, and that is common across the country these days. In our family, food and healthy eating is a keen subject.
I will concentrate on coeliac disease. This disease is one of the most common chronic, childhood diseases, unknown to many of the public, with a prevalence of one in 100. There are studies showing that. Coeliac disease is life-long, and therefore affects one in every 100 adults. I am beginning to improve my knowledge

1197
of the subject. This disease is caused by allergies to wheat, barley and rye. Some have a problem with oats. Remaining on a gluten-free diet is the only way that they can survive and continue a normal life.
There must be many thousands of sufferers of this disease in the country who are unaware of it. The symptoms are weight loss, diarrhoea and, in the case of children, failure to thrive with consequential poor growth. I am here this evening because I want to see the clear listing of all ingredients on food labels, as it is of vital importance. It is necessary that any gluten-containing ingredients are clearly identified to consumers. There has been some improvement, and the Minister may refer to that. More needs to be done, so that people are aware of what they buy. Shopping can be difficult.
Enforcement of the European Directive 2003/89/EC on allergen labelling in foods is imperative. We need the adoption of that safe, realistic standard for gluten-free products, as we do across a wide range of products, which can be enforced by UK enforcement officials.
Finally, there is, in my view, a need for more research and awareness. I hope that the Minister will address that. More serious research and awareness would assist in what we are debating today. We need better, more effective and more informative labelling that, in the long run, would be of enormous benefit to our society and the people of this country.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I, too, beg leave to speak in the gap. My reason for speaking briefly in the debate is because on my way to your Lordships' House my taxi driver asked me what was going on here today. I told him about this debate. He told me that one of his children has a serious allergy to nuts. It is so serious that the parents have to carry two syringes of adrenaline in case their boy becomes seriously ill.
My taxi driver told me that there should be a national campaign to make children, restaurants, hotels, food manufacturers, schools and everyone aware of the dangers of serious allergies, which can be life-threatening. Not enough is written on menus in restaurants and in food shops about food and sweets that are free from, for example, nuts and wheat germ. Far more research should be carried out. Supermarkets should promote healthy, clean food and drink. Can the Minister tell the House whether it is a fact that some children who have food allergies have a deficient gene?
I have a diabetic husband. Diabetes should be avoided at all costs. It causes numerous complications. But the worrying situation is that diabetes is on the increase. It is a serious problem, particularly among the Asian population. I congratulate the Government on trying to promote fruit in schools. More healthy, well-labelled food and drink should be available that is suitable for diabetics and others, including in your Lordships' Dining Room.
8.47 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I
1198
thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for raising this issue again in your Lordships' House. He is certainly an example of a campaigner. He has raised this issue time and again. But I wonder whether by now he feels a sense of frustration at the lack of progress in this area.
Certainly, on looking back at the debates in your Lordships' House in 2002 and 2003 in which I have taken part, we have said many of the same things that have been said today: I wonder whether the Minister's response will be similar. If I had had a wish, it might have been that the question posed to Her Majesty's Government asked what steps they have taken to combat misleading food labelling, to which I shall address the substance of my speech.
First, I turn to a few points made by other speakers. I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, about the social divide between lower-income families and those that are better off. Perhaps it is clearest when walking down a street with delicatessens, greengrocers, cheese shops and butchers. One knows that one is in a high-income area. I think that a low-income area is known now, colloquially, as a "food desert". There are almost no shops. That can be equally true in rural areas where shops in garages prevail, for which we are thankful. But those shops sell mostly ready meals, confectionery and fresh milk: other fresh food is not available. In many low-income urban areas, we face the same problems. There are no shops that sell fresh food anymore, which is a matter that needs urgently to be addressed. Food planning is not only a matter for the Department of Health but also for the ODPM when it issues planning guidance.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, also mentioned Sir John Krebs's comments on children's breakfasts and what children were eating as they passed the end of his street. I agree that children's breakfasts, or lack of them, is a matter of concern and I praise those schools which have introduced breakfast clubs. This has proved to be a worthwhile initiative.
Yesterday, in your Lordships' House, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, hosted a worthwhile meeting with representatives of the Food Standards Agency and I was able to raise with them the issue of local initiatives and their funding. I consider breakfasts clubs in schools to be an initiative which is key to introducing children to good eating habits.
In reply to my question about the funding of local initiatives, the deputy chairman of the Food Standards Agency, Julia Unwin, said that it was at a lamentably low level. If such local initiatives prove worth while but need support, can the Minister say from which pot of money they will receive funding after the one or two years in which they may receive pilot funding? Many initiatives receive pilot funding but, even if they prove extremely worth while, it is difficult to continue with them—and changing the eating habits of children will take a lot longer than a year or two.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the establishment of the Food Standards Agency has been a beacon, but I am not sure whether it has succeeded as well

1199
as it would wish to on the issue of labelling. I have looked at its website in this regard and I think what I found there bears repeating to your Lordships. Its website asks:
"What do labels tell me'?"
The reply is:
"Labels are there to tell you what you are buying".
There is no differentiation in the mind of the Food Standards Agency—nor, as far as I can see, in anyone else's—between the packaging on the food which contains the whole marketing message and the nutritional panel, which is what I believe the Food Standards Agency means.
The website goes on to say:
"The law says the name of a product must not be misleading".
That is not the case because we know that the description "chicken pie", for example, is deeply misleading when it contains only 10 or 15 per cent chicken. If you called it "Gloop-pie with a little chicken in it", that would not be misleading. So the Food Standards Agency needs to tighten up its definition of "label". The agency refers to the nutrition panel whereas the public believe that "label" means the entirety of what they see on the food packaging.
The agency then goes on to ask:
"What should I look for on labels?".
Its reply is:
"Value for money. As well as comparing pack weights, you can use the ingredient list to choose which product you want from the points of view of health. taste and cost".
I do not believe that that is at all the case. I certainly cannot tell from the label what the taste of a product will be like. I agree that cost is clearly indicated in all shops; it is required to be so by law. But the main point is whether the label gives me a good guide to health. No, it does not; it is too complicated. I believe that all noble Lords who have spoken tonight will agree with that. This is an area in which I hope the Minister will be able to give some assurance that a much simpler scheme will be introduced.
Some people have spoken of a red, yellow and green traffic light system, where red is a warning that a food contains high salt, high sugar or high fat levels; yellow is a warning that the food contains a medium level of such ingredients but that if you add it to other food it may result in higher levels in your diet; and green indicates a food that you can eat as much as you like of without any worries.
Under the sub-heading "Freedom of choice", the website says:
"Labels allow you to buy things you like or avoid things you shouldn't eat".
No they do not. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for the points they made.
My husband is a coeliac, so I can appreciate the problems the noble Lord highlighted. Although a food product will occasionally be labelled as gluten-free, gluten turns up in the most unexpected places. It turns up in mustard, for instance; often labels do not say so, but mustard can contain wheat. Perhaps more
1200
insidious is that when coeliacs are stuck for something to eat, they may turn to chips; they think that as they are made from potatoes, they are a very safe food. However, it is not widely known that many chips are actually coated in flour, which causes coeliacs endless difficulties. So we need labelling to be much more accurate.
Defensive labelling, which says, "This product may contain nuts", is no help to anybody—people need to know whether a product contains nuts or not. The Government urgently need to address labelling which is simply there to avoid prosecution rather than giving information.
In 2003, the National Consumer Council published the extremely good Bamboozled, Baffled and Bombarded—consumers' views on voluntary food labelling. Since its publication, which contained many good recommendations of which I am sure the Minister is aware, what progress have the Government made in implementing those recommendations?
The consumer perspective highlighted by the publication is to do with consumer confusion. It defined, very usefully, the different purposes that food packaging serves at present. It serves to offer advice, guidance, claims, data, logo, a brand name, marketing messages, and so on. We need a much clearer definition of what is expected of the food industry when we talk about labelling. We must define the difference between labelling and nutritional information. Nutritional information is divided into two: a short list, which gives the energy, protein, carbohydrates and fats contained in a product, and a long list, which gives the sugar, saturated fats, fibre and sodium content.
I think that all the requirements in law about labelling on the nutritional panel is now done at an EU level. Part of the Government's job is to lobby at that level for the changes that have been found to be necessary. Of course, the UK is not alone in finding these difficulties. Levels of obesity are rising right across the European Union, so it will need European Union action. It will also need action at a national level. Perhaps there should be a code, such as Defra has for green claims that are false, for inaccurate claims about food.
The Food Standards Agency survey in March this year found that as well as being misled about ingredients, consumers are being misled about terms such as "fresh", "pure", "natural", "traditional", "original", "authentic", "home-made" and "farmhouse". We are well aware of those sorts of terms. They are on almost every product. They make one feel warm and cosy. They do no one a service. Usually, they are covering up food that is far from those things. The most natural, fresh and traditional foods are those that arrive in their prime state and need very little labelling because they are most clearly a sack of potatoes, a chicken or a bag of Brussels sprouts. However, once those have been processed, the division becomes blurred.
In the final minute of my speech, I wish to deal with children's eating habits, which the Government can change only through education, education, education. The topic needs to be back on the curriculum in a big way. School meals must be dealt with and health professionals such as GPs and district nurses should be

1201
taught about diets at a fundamental level. The issue of diet is vital for the health of our future generation. I would appreciate it if the Minister would tell us what the Government are doing to educate the future generation.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the House will not only be grateful, it will be delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has returned to a theme that has, as he reminded us, come up from time to time throughout his long and distinguished political career. Most of us knew him in another place as the first Minister of the Disabled, a title that now—alas—has become politically incorrect. These days we have Ministers for disabled people and I learnt very early on in my career at the now defunct DHSS that the disabled are people first and disabled second.
Having—to mix my metaphors—got that red herring off my chest, I recall that the subject of nutrition interested the noble Lord long before he came to your Lordships' House. I agree with almost everything he said, but I cannot agree with either him or the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, that legislation will be of much use, at least in the immediate future. I will come to that point in a minute. I assume that because bad nutrition leads to obesity the noble Lord instigated a short debate on the subject on 8 January last year. Alas, he was unable to take part in a more specific debate on obesity introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in October. However, I suppose that I must say that honours are even on that score because the noble Baroness is not in her place today.
Among a mass of interesting information, the noble Baroness told us that, in the United Kingdom, obesity has trebled in the past 20 years. Perhaps more relevant to today's debate, she said that more than 10 per cent of 10 year-olds and more than 17 per cent of 15 year-olds are obese. Obesity is defined as when the body mass index—weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared—is more than 30 grams per metre squared. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, did not dispute either of those facts. Neither did he say that the body mass index is little understood by anyone outside the medical profession. Even they, I note from yesterday's Evening Standard, are beginning to argue among themselves about whether it is the shape rather than the bulk of the body that causes the problems.
In both debates the conclusion was that increasing obesity, leading as the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe, reminded us, to massive increases in the incidence of diabetes, coronary disease and stroke, is a time bomb waiting to explode.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, hoped to convince me on the last occasion that the Government had a strategy to deal with the problem. I am afraid that he failed. What he called a strategy, I would have to call some modest although hopefully effective tinkering round the edges. His noble friend Lord Morris called it "adhocracy". It included the cross-government food and health action plan. The thinking on that is so
1202
advanced that only tomorrow is the Secretary of State to launch it department-wide. Considering that the Chief Medical Officer raised the problem of obesity again last year, that we have known about it for at least five years and that the Government have been seven years in office, even the Prime Minister can hardly call that "speedy progress".
Another part of the strategy is the cross-government activity co-ordination team. The current manifestation of this is the "Summer of Sport" campaign led by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell, and welcomed by the Secretary of State for Health. It is all very fine and dandy until one realises that of the £750 million commitment of lottery funds to school and community sport, only £8.5 million has been spent to date.
Noble Lords have commented on the amount of time children spend on sport. The Government's much vaunted two hours a week of in-school sport is still not universal, I am told. In any case, even if it were available in all schools, is two hours enough? Sweden, with a much lower average body mass index than ours, offers 10 hours. Is that not what we too should be aiming for?
A salt reduction plan for processed food manufacturers was highlighted by the Minister in the debate tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Granted, high levels do untold damage to arteries in particular, but what exactly has that to do with obesity? As has been pointed out by all speakers today, of much more relevance is the amount of sugar and fat, but they were to be tackled second. Why? Do the Government have a pecking order of government health priorities? If so, can we be let into the secret as to what principles set it?
This brings me on to food labelling, currently controlled by the Food Labelling Regulations 1996. Although I am a strong believer, and by it a financially rewarded believer, in the single market, it is noticeable that they were allowed by the European Union only because the Commission had no plans at that time to produce a directive on the subject. Now it has started the legislative process, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said. Unfortunately, since it has started, we cannot change our own legislation unilaterally. It is, quite simply, illegal. All the good ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and other noble Lords are thwarted unless the Government can get a voluntary agreement from the processed food industry.
Even then, it could cover only home produced or— and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe—home packaged or own-label food. No doubt the Minister will claim that the Government have made great strides in persuading the Commission of what is needed. I hope that he will be able to tell us the outcome of what is currently in the draft directive—which has come to a temporary, I hope, grinding halt because the European Parliament cannot discuss it until after the elections next month. Will the Government use their good offices to make sure that it finds a high place on the newly elected parliament's agenda?

1203
Much as I approve, there could be a problem even with this legislation. America, as the Minister knows, has the strictest food labelling in the world. It also has the highest rate of obesity. Can anyone tell me why? I have asked all over the place for this information but no one seems to be able to produce the answer. Perhaps the Minister, with the resources at his command, can do so. He indicates not and I am not in the least surprised. Perhaps not tonight but at some time.
My particular bugbear is fat content. Many processed foods now state "90 per cent fat free". How wonderful. Claims like that should be banned. They are, in essence, stating a negative. What they should state is, "Contains 10 per cent fat". That would be much more useful to the consumer. Still, it is a heck of a lot when you consider that fat, whatever it is, will inevitably be only part of an individual's diet. It is the total diet, unmatched by physical activity, that leads to obesity at any age. Bluntly, if calories in equal calories out, there is no problem. More and more people are not using up calories, so more and more people are becoming obese. It is calories that count, not the amount of food. Going to school on a bowl of porridge is far better for your children than going to school on a Mars bar—sugar being just as damaging as fat.
When I am in London I live near a large comprehensive school surrounded by an absolute plethora of corner shops where I buy my newspaper in the morning. I have observed over the years how much their takings are increased in term time by children buying fizzy drinks, crisps and chocolate bars. As an admitted chocoholic myself I can sympathise with these children. However, how can a responsible parent possibly control a child's intake of calories when they do not know what their children are eating away from home? I cannot imagine that the only solution that I can come up with—reducing their pocket money—would do much for family relations.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, what about schools? Are they teaching responsible food consumption in the same way as children have sex lessons? I doubt it, but I have no doubt that the Minister will correct me in his usual way if I am wrong.
Your Lordships may have been surprised by my mention of sex lessons in a debate such as this—as I have to say I was by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on nuts, and indeed by the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I believe that on this the food industry can be congratulated. The most amazing products say, "may contain nuts". "May" contain nuts is a far better warning if one is allergic to nuts than "does" or "does not". Sooner or later something will slip in—an oil will have been used previously in cooking and the pan will not have been washed out properly—and the nuts will arrive in the wrong food. So I totally disagree with the noble Baroness; I praise the food industry for saying "may contain nuts".
However, back to sex—there is a logic. It seems to me that we have a very good template in how to tackle obesity in children. I became a junior health Minister in
1204
the mid-1980s, just after my noble friend Lord Fowler had devised a strategy for combating AIDS. Your Lordships will remember that exactly the same sort of warnings about sexually transmitted diseases were given then as there are about obesity today. Three things were done. First, an enormous amount was spent on public sector broadcasting. Secondly, sex lessons in schools were given an impetus to cover the subject. Thirdly, the private sector became involved. Your Lordships will remember that Richard Branson developed Mates condoms and the Government made sure that mention of condoms became acceptable. The net result was a gradual decline in the incidence of AIDS.
There is no reason why the same should not happen now: nutrition lessons in schools for every child regardless of sex; physical training—or PE, as I believe it is now called—as well as games in school, whether in an indoor playing area or on the playing fields, which, alas, as noble Lords have said, are declining, especially in our state schools; a greatly increased amount of public sector broadcasting on the subject; and, lastly, the involvement of the private sector.
I heard the other day of a local authority that had issued all the children in school with pedometers. Locals said it was throwing bad money after good. Not so. The whingers did not take account of the fact that children are distinctly competitive animals. "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours" took on a totally new meaning. The children started walking, jumping, skipping and playing games. The point is that today's school children are tomorrow's workforce. Cannot local firms be persuaded to adopt local schools and give the children pedometers?
These three things need drive and persuasion and someone must be in charge. Ministers have too many other things to do, as indeed does the Chief Medical Officer and his staff. The Government believe in health tsars—but they are isolated in the Department of Health. My party has a policy of having an interdepartmental equivalent, not just for obesity but for public health as a whole. We call him or her the public health commissioner. There is not even a smell of a similar idea from the Government; perhaps there will be tonight.
The Opposition cannot compel the Government to do anything. Their Back-Benchers are arguably in a slightly stronger position, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, pointed out—especially so when, as there have been tonight, there are four of them prodding the Minister from all sides and behind. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, by securing tonight's debate, is doing this country and his own Government a service. If only they would sit up and take notice. If they will not, my advice to him and to other noble Lords opposite is for goodness' sake to keep on prodding, because I am happy to join them any day of the week.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Warner: My lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the issue of misleading food labelling and what we might do to promote healthy eating,

1205
especially in children. It gives me the opportunity to outline the considerable programme of work that the Government have engaged in. I shall have to bear with fortitude the fact that I shall never satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I shall resist the temptation to enter into the area of sex or the US Government's responsibilities in relation to obesity in their country.
I should begin by emphasising that consumers have the right to clear and accurate food labels. That is the basis of the Government's labelling policy and is becoming increasingly important in today's changing world. The range of products on the supermarket shelves is expanding, while the time we spend choosing what to buy is decreasing. I would agree with a number of remarks made by my noble friends that the Co-operative Group has a history of leading the retail industry in terms of food labelling. I am more than happy to recognise its progressive approach in providing vital information to consumers.
Food labels can help us to make informed decisions about the food we eat, particularly in relation to a healthy diet. However, they can help consumers only if the information is provided in a way which the consumer can easily understand, which is not confusing and, above all, not misleading. To help ensure that consumers have access to the labelling information they need, the Food Standards Agency has in place a wide-ranging food labelling action plan, which picks up many of the recommendation of the Consumers' Association report mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. The plan comprises a mixture of regulatory and voluntary initiatives to tackle the issues that consumers have identified as priorities.
Among the agency's main achievements have been to secure an extension to the European rules on ingredient listing, which will require more detailed information on the content of packaged foods. The new rules will ensure, for example, that the presence of allergens is more clearly indicated. The new legislation on improved labelling of allergens includes nuts and nut products in foods. It will come into force in November 2004 and will make compulsory the breakdown of compound ingredients. The agency has an extensive research programme on allergens and is currently planning a campaign to improve the provision of allergen information in catering establishments.
I cannot answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on the relationship between nut allergies and gene deficiencies, but I shall look into it and write to her.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the Food Standards Agency has also published a range of best practice advice to promote labelling transparency. That includes advice on the use of terms such as "fresh", "traditional", "home-made" and so on, as well as advice on country-of-origin labelling. The agency is also in the process of consolidating the UK food labelling regulations to take account of the many national and European changes that have taken place since they were put in place.
1206
We recognise that food labelling has a role to play in enabling consumers to make healthier choices. Currently nutrition labelling on foods is mandatory only when a nutrition claim such as low fat is made. However, according to Food Standards Agency research, more than 90 per cent of consumers think it important to have nutritional information on food products. The Government therefore recommend that such information be provided and, in practice, most pre-packaged foods carry at least some nutrition information because manufacturers choose to make voluntary declarations.
A proposal to amend the current legislation is expected soon. In a discussion paper, the European Commission suggests compulsory nutrition labelling on all pre-packaged foods, to include levels of fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt in the product. Certainly, research by the Food Standards Agency has shown that many consumers find that the current format is difficult to use and that a nutrition labelling format showing the content of a nutrient as high, medium, or low would be welcomed by consumers and help them to make healthier choices.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and other noble Lords raised the issue of why action has been taken on salt reduction, in advance of other substances—I correct myself, I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who asked the question. Action on salt reduction was taken as a priority following action by the Food Standards Agency and the Department of Health following publication of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition's Salt and Health report in May 2003. That confirmed the strengthening of evidence for action to reduce adult salt intake and for the first time recommended reduced intake levels for children.
It has been suggested that signposting on products, such as a traffic light system, would help consumers quickly identify those foods which are high in fat, salt or sugar and those which are healthier choices. The Food Standards Agency believes that such signposting could be useful and is planning to fund research in this area.
Nutrition and health claims are increasingly common on foods, reflecting the growing public recognition of the importance of the diet to overall health. At present, the general requirements of UK food law, laid down by the Food Safety Act 1990, prohibit misleading claims. However a proposal to regulate nutrition and health claims more closely is currently being discussed in Europe. Simple rules will be set for nutrition claims such as low fat and reduced salt with specific criteria laid down for when these terms can be used. This would see an end to the labelling of products as, for example, 90 per cent fat-free. This type of labelling can mislead by implying that a product is low fat when it is not, as my noble friend Lord Morris pointed out.
For health claims the basic proposal is that these would be allowed following an independent assessment of the supporting evidence by the European Food Safety

1207
Authority. Hence if a label said that the product helps maintain a healthy heart then the consumer could have confidence that such a claim is true.
A concern with the use of both nutrition and health claims is the potential to mislead the consumer or undermine healthy eating advice. Such claims emphasise the positive aspects of a food, yet often there may be a negative side that is given less emphasis. For example, a low fat claim on a product high in salt may proclaim only the fat content. The new proposal aims to deal with this by introducing the concept of nutrition profiling where the underlying principle is that claims should not be allowed on products containing defined levels of fat, salt or sugar.
Of course, there are many more aspects to healthy eating than food labelling, and the Government have a wide range of initiatives aimed at promoting healthy eating and increasing the physical activity levels of the population. The prevention of obesity is integral to our public health activities because, as a number of noble Lords have said, obesity has trebled in England in the past 20 years with one in five adults now obese; that is almost 8 million people. Children deserve special attention, as a number of noble Lords have said, because obesity is a problem that requires prevention in childhood. The 2002 health survey for England, quoted by the Chief Medical Officer in his most recent annual report, found that 16 per cent of children were already obese, and that almost a third were either overweight or obese.
The prevention and management of obesity is at the heart of many of the Government's priority areas. The National Service Frameworks outlining action on coronary heart disease and diabetes emphasise preventing and reducing obesity as a key intervention to reduce the overall prevalence of diabetes. Long term prevention is the best course of action, especially in children. The forthcoming National Service Framework for Children will also be addressing obesity as a priority for children's health.
There is a range of actions under way to improve diet and physical activity. I refer to the promotion of breastfeeding and encouraging more women to breastfeed and to continue for at least six months. Breastfeeding in England and Wales increased from 68 per cent in 1995 to 71 per cent in 2000 and there was a significant increase of 9 percentage points in lower social classes.
The new welfare food scheme provides milk and free vitamins to 800,000 low-income families. The reformed scheme will ensure that children in poverty have access to a healthy diet helping them to buy a range of foods, including milk, infant formula, fresh fruit and vegetables. The "five a day" programme, including the national school fruit scheme, aims to increase access to and consumption of fruit and vegetables. Local five a day pilot initiatives were found to increase consumption of fruit and vegetables among the lowest consumers by about one portion a day. A five a day logo has been developed as part of the communications programme to help people recognise the five a day message and introduce consistency in the message in all settings.
1208
In addition, the Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency and the Department for Education and Skills are working together to provide information on diet and nutrition to school children through a number of school based initiatives. This work includes: the funding of a cooking bus that visits schools to promote practical skills among children and their teachers; projects to identify the food-related skills for 14 to 16 year-olds to be covered by the curriculum; showing how schools can operate healthier vending machines that are economically viable; and providing free fruit in schools.
The Department of Health strand of the Government's food in schools programme is made up of eight pilot projects which follow the child through the school day—healthier breakfast clubs, tuck shops, vending machines, lunch boxes and cookery clubs, as well as water provision, growing clubs and the dining room environment. These are outside of, but complement, the formal curriculum.
The Food Standards Agency's activities in this area include leading the cross-government consideration of minimum food and nutrition knowledge and skills of young people, working with the Department for Education and Skills on monitoring school meals standards; and piloting healthier drinks vending in schools.
Central government initiatives demonstrate and test innovation but, when the ideas are provided, I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that putting them into effect is largely down to the local ownership and responsibility of the local agencies.
The Food Standards Agency also encourages the provision of healthier options when eating out—this is important as this sector is increasing—by, for example, contributing to the training of caterers in key nutrition messages.
The Food Standards Agency has also recently been considering the issue of the many ways in which foods are promoted to children. To inform its work on this issue, the agency commissioned a systematic review of the evidence on food promotions and children's diet, carried out by Professor Gerard Hastings from Strathclyde University. The review concludes that advertising to children does have an effect on their preferences, purchasing behaviour and consumption, and that the influence on children's choices is apparent not only between different brands but also between different categories of foods.
The review has not been without its critics and some have challenged its findings. However, the review has undergone, and withstood, a significant amount of independent scrutiny, and its conclusions stand. Following on from the Hastings review and other agency work, the Food Standards Agency is currently consulting on a draft action plan on food promotions and children's diet. The action plan contains a number of recommendations addressed to government, schools, industry and others.

1209
The principle underlying the plan is that it is time to move from debating the issue to determining solutions. This point has been emphasised by much of what has been said in this debate.
As my noble friend said in his opening remarks, one government department cannot tackle obesity on its own. Effective prevention and management requires an integrated, cross-government approach, working with a range of partners on programmes to tackle obesity, improve diet and increase physical activity. The Government recognise that in order to achieve their long-term goals they must also create partnerships.
I remind my noble friends and other noble Lords who have raised the subject of sport and physical activity that the Government's document, Game Plan, set out ideas for driving up physical activity and sports participation from 32 per cent to 70 per cent of the population by 2020.
Earlier this year, Derek Wanless published his report Securing good health for the whole population, which focused on the need to prevent ill health. It contained a powerful analysis of the wider determinants of health including inactivity, diet and nutrition and the significant impact of economic inequalities on people's health.
1210
That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has launched the "Choosing health?" consultation exercise which will inform the production of the public health White Paper by the summer. The consultation period began at the beginning of March and will run through to the end of May, culminating in publication of the White Paper in the summer. It is looking at the key areas of public health including diet and nutrition, physical activity, obesity.
As part of the three-month consultation on the public health White Paper a conference is also being held tomorrow—"Choosing health: achieving a balance between diet and exercise". I can reassure my noble friend Lord Morris that there is nothing sinister in the postponement of the Department of Health food and health action plan. He will not have to wait much longer and there is certainly a positive flurry of government action; for example, only last week the Chief Medical Officer also launched his report on physical activity, At least five a week. This provides the evidence of impact of physical activity and its relationship to health.
The Government are committed to making a real difference to the health of the population by tackling obesity through improving diet and nutrition and by greater emphasis on exercise. I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before ten o'clock.

  Island of Ireland and British Isles: East/West Links
  Island of Ireland and British Isles: East/West Links
  North/South Ministerial Council
  North/South Ministerial Council
  Sudan: Darfur
  Sudan: Darfur
  United Kingdom: Written Constitution
  United Kingdom: Written Constitution
  Asylum and Immigration Legal Aid
  Asylum and Immigration Legal Aid
  Election Material: Freepost
  Election Material: Freepost
  Hepatitis C Infection: Ex Gratia Payments Scheme
  Hepatitis C Infection: Ex Gratia Payments Scheme
  NHS Foundation Trusts: Independent Regulator
  NHS Foundation Trusts: Independent Regulator
  Overseas Dentists
  Overseas Dentists
  Civil Service Appointments: Political Interference
  Civil Service Appointments: Political Interference
  Focus Groups: Government Expenditure
  Focus Groups: Government Expenditure
  Ministers and Officials: Cost of Overseas Visits
  Ministers and Officials: Cost of Overseas Visits
  United Kingdom-Libya Air Services Agreement
  United Kingdom-Libya Air Services Agreement
  Devolved Administrations: Ombudsman Procedure
  Devolved Administrations: Ombudsman Procedure

  Sudan: Darfur
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Hilary Benn) has made the following Statement.

  The Government are gravely concerned about the situation in Darfur, western Sudan. The UN estimates that the fighting has led to the internal displacement of over 750,000 people, with about 130,000 refugees sheltering in Chad. The civilian population is in a precarious state. Humanitarian requirements for food, water and shelter are enormous, but access remains limited. Civilian protection is a major concern with reports of systematic attacks on civilians, including killings, rape, pillage and destruction of livelihoods. The approaching rainy season, due to start in mid-May, will add to the problems, increasing the risk of epidemics and hindering the movement of relief supplies.

  The humanitarian ceasefire agreement, signed on 8 April, is a welcome step forward in resolving the crisis in Darfur. The parties must now live up to those commitments and allow international monitoring with full access to the areas and people affected.

  James Morris, head of the World Food Programme, has just returned from a mission to Sudan. I met him on 4 Mary and discussed the grave humanitarian situation and the need for the international community to do more.

  I have therefore today agreed an additional £10 million from our contingency reserve for the continuing and severe humanitarian needs in Darfur. This will bring total UK commitments for Darfur to £19.5 million. The UK is the second biggest donor to the Darfur crisis, after the US. Additional information on the UK response to date is set out below.

  October to December 2003

  Early assistance for organisations with some access (albeit very limited and variable) to Darfur:

  Save the Children UK (for north Darfur) £0.5million

  World Food Programme £2 million

  International Committee of the Red Cross £1 million

  Assistance to refugees in eastern Chad:

  UN High Commission for Refugees £1 million

  Total financial assistance October to December 2003: £4.5 million

  Continuing pressure on the Sudanese Government to allow humanitarian agencies unimpeded access to affected populations and security to operate, and to stop the fighting.
  WS 54
  January to March 2004

  Following partial opening up of Darfur for humanitarian agencies, support to meet basic needs of affected population:

  UN Children's Fund £1 million

  Médecins Sans Frontières (for south Darfur) £1.15 million

  GOAL (for north Darfur) £0.58 million

  Action Contre la Faim (for north Darfur) £0.25 million

  Additional assistance to refugees in eastern Chad:

  World Food Programme £1 million

  UN High Commission for Refugees £1 million

  Total financial assistance October 2003 to March 2004: £9.5 million

  Support to UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs to improve its co-ordination and assessment capacity in response to the crisis:

  Senior humanitarian adviser based in Khartoum for three months (extended to six months)

  Three humanitarian affairs officers based in Geneina, El Fasher and Nyala for three months

  One support staff for one month through International Humanitarian Partnership

  One focal point for UN co-ordination and logistics for one month through UN disaster assessment and co-ordination team

  Continuing pressure on the Sudanese Government to allow humanitarian agencies unimpeded access, protect civilians from attack and agree a ceasefire with international monitoring.

  Involvement in ceasefire talks between SLM/JEM and the Government of Sudan in N'Djamena.

  April 2004 onwards

  Oxfam (for north and south Darfur) £2.2 million

  Planned further contributions to UN and other international organisations.

  Total financial assistance to date: £1.7 million.

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement:

  The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is a key institution of the Belfast agreement. We in government want it to succeed and are committed to helping it to do so. It is in all our interests that we have a strong, independent and self-confident commission, which draws support from all parts of the community. It is from this position that we are approaching the coming year.

  We have listened to the criticism of the Human Rights Commission. We have also listened to the other side, those who see the commission doing the best job it can in difficult circumstances. We have thought carefully about the issues and how to address them.
  WS 55
  We will shortly begin a process to recruit a new chief commissioner and a full set of commissioners to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. We expect the process to take some months, with the new chief commissioner and commissioners being announced in the autumn. We propose to invite a number of those commissioners to take office soon after appointment. We will do this after discussion with the chief commissioner-designate, who will also be invited to join early. He or she will not become chief commissioner until the end of Brice Dickson's appointment. The remainder of the incoming commissioners will take office on 28 February 2005, at which point those who have served two terms will leave.

  We will begin this process shortly. In the mean time we will be working on the details of the process. We will use search consultants. An independent assessor will be involved throughout and there will be a human rights expert, alongside the independent assessor, on the panel which interviews candidates.

  This does not mean that the current commission is winding down—far from it. They have a great deal still to achieve.

  From the outset, each commissioner has played an important role in promoting a culture of rights in Northern Ireland. They will leave behind an impressive body of work which I believe history will judge kindly. They have served in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, at times under great pressure. For this, they deserve our gratitude and our support in their ongoing work.

  For our part, the Government remain committed to establishing a broadly based forum on the Bill of Rights. We will engage the political parties in a renewed effort to build consensus to this end.

  We understand there is much detail behind these proposals which people will want to discuss. I will be inviting the parties to put forward their views. I am clear that these discussions must respect the terms of the Belfast agreement and the independence of the commission. In this context, we will also conclude the review of the commission's powers.

  I would urge all parts of the community to work with us over the coming year. There are significant opportunities ahead to build on the great progress we have seen since in the field of rights since the Belfast agreement was reached in 1998. It is imperative that all parts of the community take those opportunities and everyone receives the same benefits.

  Infant Death Convictions
  The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)
  My Statements of 19 January and 5 February gave details of a review process established following the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Angela Cannings. I wish to inform the House of progress.
  WS 56
  The review process is now well advanced. A thorough search to identify all potentially relevant cases has been undertaken, and the process has been extended to include cases involving carers. These measures have resulted in an increase in the total number of cases subject to review from 258 to 298.

  To ensure thorough and independent scrutiny of all cases, a three-stage review process has been established. Every case file is subject to a preliminary review by a Crown Prosecution Service area to ascertain its key characteristics. Cases are then passed to a central review team comprising prosecutors who are highly experienced in complex criminal casework. A smaller number of cases are then referred to an interdepartmental group, for a final decision on whether the legal representatives of the convicted persons should be notified that there may be features in a case that warrant further consideration by the Court of Appeal or the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The interdepartmental group works under my direction, and includes representatives from the police, Crown Prosecution Service and Criminal Cases Review Commission.

  Reviews have been completed in 97 cases. In 38 of these the person convicted is still serving a custodial sentence.

  A significant further number of cases are at an advanced stage of review.

  Letters have been sent to the legal representatives of five convicted persons, notifying them that it may be appropriate for the safety of their clients' convictions to be considered further by the Court of Appeal or, if appropriate, the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Two of those convicted are sentenced to life imprisonment and remain in custody. Two have already unsuccessfully sought to appeal their convictions.

  I have made the Court of Appeal aware of the action I am taking and have liaised closely with the chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to ensure that any cases referred to these bodies will be treated expeditiously. My office stands ready to refer appropriate case files to the CCRC.

  The fact that a case has been referred to legal representatives of the convicted person does not amount to a positive determination that their conviction is unsafe. Should any appeals result from this review, it will be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide independently whether to contest the appeal.

  Sixteen live cases were identified by the CPS as potentially affected by the Cannings judgment. Fifteen have been reviewed. Two cases have been discontinued: a Hampshire case discontinued before trial and a Coventry case discontinued before retrial.

  It would not be appropriate to place in the public domain the names of defendants or convicted persons in these cases. This will be a decision for them, following advice from their legal representatives.

  CPS areas, the central review team and the interdepartmental group continue to accord this work the highest priority. I am determined that the review

  WS 57
  should he completed as soon as possible, to bring to an end this period of uncertainty for all those involved. I shall keep the House informed of further progress.

  Future Rapid Effect System
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Adam Ingram MP) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Ministry of Defence has approved the launch of a two-year assessment phase for the future rapid effect system (FRES). FRES is the most significant armoured vehicle project for the next decade. It is central to the Army's future force structure, providing a family of network-capable armoured vehicles as part of a coherent and highly deployable medium-weight force. It will deliver a step-change in the capability of our forces to meet the challenges of future expeditionary operations. FRES is also intended to meet the need to replace a number of in-service vehicles, such as SAXON, with modern, battle-winning equipment.

  The assessment phase will be led by a systems house, independent of product or manufacturing capability, selected for its programme management, risk management and systems engineering capabilities. The successful candidate will be selected via competition and a contract should be placed in late 2004. The systems house will provide an objective view of ideas and technologies, which may be applicable to FRES, and of the risks inherent in complex "system of systems" integration. It will exploit and build on previous work wherever possible. In addition, as part of an incremental acquisition approach, the assessment phase will include a range of risk reduction and technology demonstration work 10 examine the risks of relevant technologies and to determine if they are suitable for FRES, allowing the insertion of new technologies as they mature.

  The FRES project also provides excellent opportunities for the UK defence industry to engage in the programme in line with defence industrial policy. The assessment phase will reach as wide and deep as possible to harness the broadest range of industrial capability, creativity and innovation. The systems house will therefore need to work closely with companies in the armoured fighting vehicle and other related sectors to draw on their expertise. There will also be opportunities for such companies to participate in the technology demonstration work during the assessment phase.

  Options for future phases of the programme have deliberately been kept open, but the way forward for FRES announced today provides the right foundations for the project and for the successful delivery of this important capability.

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  During Standing Committee consideration of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill in February, concern was expressed that the Government should provide more independent oversight of the arrangements provided for the Armed Forces in this area. I made clear to Committee members that I recognised the intent behind these concerns and we have considered how we might respond. We have now decided that we will give the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) a role in externally validating the provisions of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS). We plan that this will be done in the context of their quinquennial valuation of the AFPS, though more frequent examinations of the scheme provisions could be undertaken if wider developments justified this.

  The broad intent is that the AFPRB would compare the scheme provisions with practice elsewhere in the economy and consider the extent to which they meet the recruitment and retention needs of the Armed Forces. The review body's observations would then be made public in a supplement to the following annual report and the government would also make public its response to these observations. I am pleased to say that the chairman of the review body and his colleagues have agreed to take on this additional responsibility and we are now in discussion on the detail to determine the timing of the first such review. I am confident that this change will provide for more independence in reviewing the terms of the AFPS while equally helping us to ensure coherence across the broader remuneration package, comprising both pay and pensions. It should also provide additional reassurance for Service personnel by ensuring effective independent validation of the appropriateness of the pension provisions for our Armed Forces.

  Service Children's Education: Key Targets 2004–05
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Mnisterial Statement.

  The chief executive of Service Children's Education has been set the following Key Targets for 2004–05.

  Key Target 1

  Sustain threshold level performance at each of the key stages 1, 2 and 3 by remaining at least 3 per cent ahead of national (England) achievement.

  Sustain the percentage of pupils obtaining A*-C at GCSE as a three-year rolling average.

  Sustain the percentage of students obtaining A–E at A-level as a three-year rolling average.
  WS 59
  Key Target 2

  Sustain SCE's notional position in the English local education authority league tables, within the leading 25 (of 150) LEAs at each of key stages 1, 2 and 3.

  Key Target 3

  At the higher levels of attainment (i.e. level 3 + at key stage 1, level 5 + at key stage 2, level 6 + at key stage 3) match national level of performance in 50 per cent of the 12 subject elements in 2004, rising in equal steps to 66 per cent in 2006.

  Key Target 4

  For GCSE, show improvement in average points scores by achieving at least the England capped upper quartile figure (38.8).

  Key Target 5

  To achieve grade 4 or above (on the Ofsted seven-point scale) in at least 85 per cent of schools inspected, in each of the following areas:

  Overall effectiveness of the school

  Overall standards achieved

  Pupils' attitudes, values and personal qualities

  The quality of education provided by the school

  The leadership and management of the school

  Key Target 6

  To demonstrate customer satisfaction with a survey result of 69 per cent satisfaction or more from Army continuous attitude surveys.

  Survey Information
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The first duty under the Freedom of Information Act to be implemented by government departments was the requirement to prepare publication schemes. The MoD's publication scheme is accessible via the Internet at www.foi.mod.uk. Since the scheme was published in November 2002, we have continued to look for opportunities to extend the commitment to make information available proactively. To date, a further five classes of information have been added to the original publication scheme and a process for identifying and adding more is in place. The new classes cover information provided by the Army Historical Branch, the Naval Historical Branch, Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) Corporate Documents, Defence Data Definitions, and Defence Statistics.

  As a further step in this process, I am announcing today that a new class of information will be included to require publication of the consolidated results of corporate-level quantitative opinion surveys carried out to gauge the attitude of members of the public to the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces. The results of similar surveys undertaken internally with a random cross-section of the department's own staff will also be published. The results of the external
  WS 60
  corporate-level surveys undertaken since 1999 are also being placed in the Library of the House.

  From October 2004, we also plan to release the results of the continuous attitude surveys which are undertaken by each of the three Services to measure the morale and understand the concerns of their personnel across a spectrum of issues. These surveys are sent out annually to a random sample of around 8,000 military personnel at all ranks. This commitment to publish the results of these surveys will also be reflected through a class of information in the MoD's publication scheme.

  Defence Medical Education and Training Agency
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The following key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Defence Medical Education and Training Agency (DMETA) for the financial year 2004–05:

  Key Target 1: Deployable Personnel

  To meet 100 per cent of the commander in chief's requirements for secondary care personnel under DMETA command for operational deployments.

  Key Target 2: Military Training

  To ensure that 80 per cent of all DMETA personnel, whose medical category permits, achieve their service's annual mandatory individual military training.

  Key Target 3: Training Success

  a. Initial Training (Phase 2).

  To provide initial training (phase 2) that meets the requirements, professional standards and timescales defined by the single services.

  b. Career, Professional and Continuation Training (Phase 3).

  To provide career, professional and continuation training (phase 3) that meets the requirements, professional standards and timescales defined by the single services.

  Key Target 4: Efficiency and Cost Management

  a. DMETA Estate

  Ensure the rationalisation and efficient usage of the current DMETA estate, reducing the balance sheet value of the estate as at 1 April 2003 by at least 50 per cent by 2010, thereby reducing the cost of training.
  WS 61
  b. Cost Measurement

  To develop an output cost-based methodology for efficiency and unit cost performance measurement for implementation by April 2005.

  Key Target 5: Customer Focus

  To develop and implement by 1 April 2005 a measure of the extent to which customers value the quality of DMETA outputs.

  Decent Homes
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I am today announcing my approval to 58 new schemes that could release up to £3 billion more investment to tackle another 170,000 homes and further reduce the number of non-decent social homes. This adds to the considerable achievement of there already being 1 million fewer social homes below the decency standard than seven years ago.

  I am also announcing a new scheme which would enable proposed stock transfers with a funding gap to go ahead. This will ensure that the option of a stock transfer is available to those cases where the stock has a negative value.

  The new schemes draw on funding using our three designated routes for councils which need extra resources to make their stock decent.

  I have awarded 12 local authorities places on the fourth round of the Arms Length Management Programme. These are Bassetlaw, Brent, Ealing, Eastbourne, Hammersmith & Fulham, Newark & Sherwood, Nottingham, Rotherham, Sandwell, Sheffield (partial), Slough, and Wolverhampton. Together, the bids from these authorities are for over £1.8 billion and cover just under 114,000 non-decent homes.

  I have agreed nine new schemes under the private finance initiative. These are in Cheshire, Derby, Kent, Kirklees, the London Boroughs of Croydon, Islington and Lambeth, Manchester and West Wiltshire. We are making PFI credits of around £370 million available to tackle 3,300 non-decent homes as well as providing new and refurbished affordable housing and building new sheltered and supported housing.

  Thirty stock transfer schemes in 14 local authorities have been awarded places on the 2004 transfer programme: Broxbourne, Ellesmere Port & Neston, Halton, Hyndburn, Kings Lynn & West Norfolk, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Macclesfield, Mid Devon, North Somerset, Sedgefield, Stafford, West Lancashire-and seven more in four local authorities have had places held open: Manchester, North Norfolk, Preston, and Teesdale. Together they generate £1 billion of private sector investment to tackle 56,000 non-decent homes and keep the stock in good condition for 30 years.
  WS 62
  These announcements are a tremendous achievement which show that we are making great strides toward our aim, which I confirmed in the Sustainable Communities Plan in March 2003, of making all social housing decent by 2010.

  UK Debt Management Office: Targets and Business Plan 2004–05
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Debt Management Office (DMO) is today publishing its business plan for 2004–05. The DMO's targets for 2004–05 are set out in the business plan. A brief commentary on last year's outturn in relation to the comparable targets will be included in the DMO's report and accounts for 2003–04. A copy of the business plan has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Department of Trade and Industry: Operating and Financial Review
  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 has made the following Ministerial Written Statement.

  I am launching today a consultation on draft regulations for a statutory operating and financial review (OFR), following a recommendation of the Company Law Review and proposals set out in the Government's Modernising Company Law White Paper of July 2002. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House and the Vote Office.

  The OFR regulations will require quoted companies to provide a narrative report setting out the company's business objectives, its strategy for achieving them and the risks and uncertainties that might affect their achievement. It will require companies to report on other matters where these are necessary for an understanding of the business. These matters include employees, the environment and social and community issues. It is proposed that where directors believe that they have nothing to report on those matters, they will have to state that fact. The OFR will represent a move from reporting on past performance to an assessment of the future prospects of the company in both the short and the long term. It will enable shareholders to judge whether the directors' view of the business meets their own long-term investment needs and their own expectations of the way good companies should perform—companies that understand the importance of human capital, open dealings with customers and suppliers, and their impact on the environment and on the wider community.
  WS 63
  The OFR will apply to all quoted companies. These are companies registered in Great Britain that are either listed in the Uk or in any other EEA state or whose shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ. The regulations also implement related changes to the directors' report of other companies required by the Accounts Modernisation Directive.

  A number of quoted companies already prepare OFRs or adopt the broad approach set out in a guidance statement originally introduced by the Accounting Standards Board in 1993 and revised in 2003. The directors of those companies recognise that such reporting can contribute to the profile of the company and offer the market confidence about its management and prospects. The OFR regulations will provide directors with the opportunity to provide key information to shareholders within a statutory regime which will give reassurance on the quality of the information provided. It will enable the best companies to maintain and promote their high standards while allowing other companies to raise their standards. It will contribute to market stability, shareholder engagement, investment, company performance and corporate social responsibility. It will facilitate informed dialogue between directors and shareholders, encouraging responsible institutional investors to adopt an understanding of the particular businesses their investments rely upon.

  The Accounting Standards Board will be preparing a new reporting standard for the OFR. In addition, alongside the consultation, a working group chaired by Rosemary Radcliffe and representing a range of business, investor and wider interests, is publishing practical guidance for directors on the preparation of the OFR. I am extremely grateful to the working group for the hard work it has undertaken on this essential element of the OFR.

  The consultation period will end on 6 August. After taking into account responses to the consultation, I intend to lay the regulations before the end of the year, so that they can apply to accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. I hope that all those interested in this issue will respond to our consultation and help us to ensure that the OFR is an effective tool.

  Energy Companies: Special Shares
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made the following Ministerial Written Statement.

  I wish to inform the House about the Government's decision on the future of special shares held in the British Energy Group, Nuclear Generation Decommissioning Fund Ltd, National Grid Transco plc, Viridian, Phoenix Natural Gas, Scottish Power, and Scottish and Southern Energy.

  The Secretary of State for Scotland and I jointly hold a special share in British Energy plc. I hold a special share in British Energy's English operating subsidiary, British Energy Generation Limited, and the Secretary of State for Scotland holds a special
  WS 64
  share in the Scottish operating subsidiary, British Energy Generation (UK) Limited. I also hold a special share in the Nuclear Generation Decommissioning Fund Ltd (NGDF) which would be subsumed into the new Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF) being created as part of the proposed restructuring of British Energy. In addition, I also hold a special share in National Grid Transco plc. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland holds special shares in Viridian, and Phoenix Natural Gas. The Secretary of State for Scotland holds special shares in Scottish Power, and Scottish and Southern Energy.

  Special shares in these companies require the consent of the relevant Minister for certain significant decisions affecting shareholdings, the structure of the company or disposal of certain assets. In particular government consent is required for any move which would allow a single person to own more than 15 per cent in any of the companies.

  We have been considering carefully the future of these shares which date back to the original privatisation of the companies in the light of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgments on special shares (including BAA) on 13 May 2003, and, in the case of British Energy, the proposed restructuring of the company. The Government have concluded that the current legal and regulatory framework now provides adequate protection of the public policy objectives, which the special shares were initially set up to cover. We will only maintain those which can be justified and are necessary in the public interest.

  Taking account of the ECJ judgments, the Government have decided to redeem the special shares held in National Grid Transco plc, Viridian, Phoenix Natural Gas, Scottish Power, and Scottish and Southern Energy.

  The Government have decided, however, that it would be justifiable to retain two key provisions of the British Energy special share: first, the provision to require anyone having purchased more than 15 per cent of the issued shares of British Energy to obtain the Government's consent; secondly, the provision requiring the consent of the appropriate Secretary of State for any disposal of a nuclear station by British Energy. It is proposed that both of these provisions will be amended to provide that government consent may be refused only on national security grounds. The nuclear security regime operated by the department's Office for Civil Nuclear Security is robust and comprehensive, and is designed to prevent unauthorised access to nuclear stations or nuclear material falling into inappropriate hands. But in the context of nuclear energy we believe it is justified and proportionate to the risks involved to retain these two particular special share provisions in the companies of the British Energy Group.

  Other provisions of the special shares in the British Energy Group would be given up on the same basis as for the conventional electricity companies. In light of the ECJ judgment it would not be justified to retain general powers over the commercial operations of the company. These rights have not protected, and will not

  WS 65
  protect. the Government's economic interest in British Energy. This interest arises from the Government's ultimate responsibility to ensure safe management and funding of BE's nuclear liabilities, which would always fall to government in the last resort given their duty to safeguard nuclear safety, security and environmental protection. For the future, it is the contractual arrangements we are putting in place as part of the restructuring that would compel British Energy to contribute to its liabilities and help to minimise
  WS 66
  demands on the taxpayer, and enable us to monitor the performance of the company.

  The special share in the NGDF will be retained and carried forward into the NLF if British Energy's restructuring is successful. The special share contributes to the protection of government's significant interest in ensuring that the NGDF/NLF company achieves its purpose of receiving, investing and ultimately paying out moneys for the decommissioning of British Energy's nuclear power stations.